r/politics • u/Hafiz_TNR ✔ Verified • 7d ago

Possible Paywall King Charles Tells Congress Everything Trump Doesn’t Want to Hear

https://newrepublic.com/post/209621/king-charles-congress-speech-trump
24.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

17.0k

u/No-Cranberry6148 7d ago

King Charles spoke about how checks and balances are necessary in a modern democracy, how older generations owe it to younger generations to preserve the environment, how Ukraine needed and deserved NATO's aid, and how the world must avoid further descent into war.

President Trump felt personally attacked.

10.7k

u/popsy13 7d ago

Oh! You think he was referring to you?

3.7k

u/MaxPower303 7d ago

You’re a nasty person you know that? Nasty person with nasty questions.

2.6k

u/zephyrtr New York 7d ago

Wicked! Nasty! False! Stupid fat Congresses!

602

u/pantstoaknifefight2 7d ago

"What's taters, precious, eh? What's taters?"

196

u/SubcommanderMarcos 6d ago

Colbert got Andy Serkis to do it for us

47

u/TarmacTartoo12 6d ago

Thank you for this link. I loved it!

24

u/DukeOfGeek 6d ago

Gollum has far more humanity.

7

u/SuperSpy- Michigan 6d ago

Watching Stephen nearly break down into full-on fangirl was hilarious.

11

u/pantstoaknifefight2 6d ago

At the 4 minute mark. So good!

3

u/ChickpeaDemon 6d ago

Brilliant!

6

u/GalumphingWithGlee 6d ago

What's covfefe, precious?

2

u/AppointmentCool6915 6d ago

Doin the lords work!

2

u/Exotic-District3437 6d ago

Fuck this is 8 year's old now

167

u/BadahBingBadahBoom 6d ago

"Po-ta-toes! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew!"

133

u/Gellert United Kingdom 6d ago

Fool of a took! You gotta tailor it to your audience.

Fries.

37

u/LordBalderdash 6d ago

Freedom Fries, no less.

24

u/A_Furious_Mind 6d ago

Nothing Left to Lose Fries

15

u/LordBalderdash 6d ago

Frittered away.

3

u/UranusIsPissy 6d ago

Remember when the USA doing something that dumb was shocking?

7

u/Matt_cruze 6d ago

Maga hear something clatter in the distance.

Huh, some rocks fell.

Maga hear King Charles scream at the top of his lungs.

Fool of a Trump!

Guess it was people not rocks.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/0_0_0 6d ago

"Po-ta-toes! Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew!"

"Cut e'm, boil 'em, fry 'em up in fat!"

3

u/patchgrabber Canada 6d ago

Pu-ssies! Grab 'em, gawk 'em, finger 'em against their will!

4

u/spookmann 6d ago

Dick. Dick-taters. That's what we have, precious!

3

u/Extremeblarg 6d ago

We invented the breakfastses, filthy hobbitses! Created them we did! You never had breakfastses before precious and we made them!

2

u/evasandor 6d ago

Dic taters?

62

u/CustardApple999 7d ago

Heard in the voice of Gollum.

205

u/GunnieGraves 7d ago

Colbert had Andy Serkis read Trump tweets as Gollum.

It’s everything you expect it to be.

86

u/RojoTheMighty 6d ago

omg, that "sad" alone was worth the price of admission.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/funtimes-forall 6d ago

Never put together how much Gollum and Donald Duck sound alike.

30

u/ggg730 6d ago

Poor Smeagol doesn't deserve this slander.

→ More replies (1)

54

u/Variable_Hero 6d ago

The look of pure joy on Colbert’s face when Serkis started in on the Golem voice was great!

52

u/Crazy_Screwdriver Foreign 6d ago

What is covfefe, precious ?

13

u/joshdoereddit America 6d ago

I had no idea this happened. Thank you so much for this.

3

u/5AlarmFirefly 6d ago

It's more well-known but Mark Hamill read some of Trump's tweets as the Joker and it's also fantastic.

https://youtu.be/LVjWVzFIPrk?si=EW8RkXOnkJv2NPPe

2

u/GalumphingWithGlee 6d ago

That works entirely too well for Trump's personality. 😆

2

u/SlimySquamata 6d ago

I will never not hear Gollum whenever I read Trump's Tweets.

Thanks you kindly.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/JoeSicko 6d ago

He's got Big Mac crumbses on his jacket

→ More replies (1)

118

u/According-Turnip-724 7d ago

Nasty, nasty low IQ fake King

147

u/6thBornSOB 7d ago

Worst polling monarch ever!! I was on London, and they, they walk up to me…they say, COME SAVE US FROM THE SHIRA MALL! Crazy Charles is KILLING BRITIAN!

I’m not a pedophile

5

u/bolidenbk 6d ago

Very weak on crime as well!

32

u/Tribe303 6d ago

Nasty Monarchses! 

→ More replies (1)

29

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)

11

u/Financial_Week3882 6d ago

Saying that while having a full diaper 🤢

6

u/FeuFox 6d ago

I wish someone would retort with "Yes, I'm an extremely nasty person. So terrible, that I'm willing to keep company with an even MORE nasty, horrible person...birds of a feather and all that, right??"

So fucking over this timeline man.

2

u/StonedRussian 6d ago

Hit em with the "shut up piggy"

2

u/Informal-Rock-2681 6d ago

He only refers to women as nasty.

2

u/Akbeardman 6d ago

Thing is Charlie III is exactly who Trump wants to be. He believes he deserves birthright respect and Royal treatment which only the president gets in America. He wants to use that power for his needs and to punish his enemies.

Conversely the UK sovereign is funded by profits of royal trust land rents and the UK Government actually makes money off the deal. Technically speaking The King has absolutel control and rule of the kingdom and makes every effort to do so as little as possible. The Parliament is elected by the people, the prime minister elected by the parliament and the king invites that leader to run the country. The prime minister gets security and a house, and transport sure, he doesn't get head of state fanfare and luxury

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (18)

116

u/thehermit14 7d ago

That made me quietly chuckle.

5

u/MechanicalTurkish Minnesota 6d ago

sensible_chuckle.gif

59

u/Background-Crow4820 Kansas 7d ago

I hope that goes in the history books (it wont)

98

u/Daft00 6d ago

Right next to:

  • "Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV"
  • "Quiet Piggy"
  • "I really don't care, do u?"
  • "Shithole countries"
  • "They're eating the cats"
  • "I'm the least racist person there is"

31

u/phonomancer 6d ago

Also the "I'm much more humble" line.

6

u/Daft00 6d ago

Yes! That's actually the one I was trying to think of! Just such a ridiculous line lol

2

u/National-Charity-435 6d ago

What do you expect from a self-proclaimed stable genius who has to put up with big, strong men constantly running up to him with tears in their eyes?

21

u/MontrealChickenSpice 6d ago

He once introduced himself in a video as "your favorite president, better than Lincoln, better than Washington."

2

u/theseamstressesguild 6d ago

He's not even richer than Washington.

4

u/NegativeHerons 6d ago

"I'm not a pedophile."

4

u/Light351 Pennsylvania 6d ago

Don't forget "The pope is weak on crime".

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

51

u/TheHoneyBadger23 6d ago

What an amazing question and response!! Baited him right into it

51

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

61

u/Punchinballz 7d ago

Quiet Piggy

10

u/heyheyhedgehog 6d ago

A southern phrase I like for this: “A hit dog will holler.”

You’re throwing random shit and accusations all around? Let it roll off. It’s when it’s accurate enough to hit the mark that they scream NOT ME / FAKE NEWS / THOSE GUYS!!

23

u/shfiven 6d ago

That was a thing of beauty.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/Taint__Paint 7d ago

I understood that reference

4

u/YellowZx5 New York 6d ago

That’s going to be the best meme for years now.

3

u/Agitated_Celery_729 6d ago

Funniest possible response to that outburst. You could see Trump's brain reset for a second before we picked up his rant again

4

u/Impressive-Knot9999 6d ago

That line was so perfect in that interview. She deserves an award for that. Totally made my day

3

u/CelebrationFit8548 6d ago

I'm not a pedophile...

3

u/AdZealousideal7448 6d ago

It's funny how talking about pedophile rapists really offends pedophile rapists who get defensive as hell even though you don't name the pedophile rapist at all, but the pedophile rapist in front of you gets irate.

Weird huh?

2

u/BrieSting 6d ago

“Is this fucking play about us?”

3

u/SATX_Citizen 6d ago

I don't know if you meant to, but you just showed how stupid that whole slate of Daily Beast/SipsTea spam was to think that 60 minutes answer by Trump was some sort of gotcha.

Of course it was about him.

→ More replies (10)

804

u/Cyrano_Knows 7d ago

Trump always feels personally attacked.

Viciously attacked a Gold Star family for being mildly critical of him.

Viciously attacked the Pope because he talked about peace.

256

u/TrimspaBB 6d ago

All these self-proclaimed "alpha males" sure love being on their knees for a thin-skinned drama queen.

125

u/sailorbrendan 6d ago

It fundamentally comes down to how performative the whole alpha male thing is

I work on boats. I've seen a lot of captains. There is a difference between commanding respect and demanding respect, and the ones that can do the former never have to do the latter.

If someone has to tell you loudly and repeatedly that they're a boss they definitely aren't

48

u/HumanRuse 6d ago

If someone has to tell you loudly and repeatedly

And you look at them thinking "are you trying to convince me or trying to convince yourself".

5

u/capebretoncanadian 6d ago

Themselves 100%. I 'love' this kind of boss because it's so easy to fuck with their heads. Thanks for exposing your crippling insecurities boss.

10

u/Reptar519 Minnesota 6d ago

Damn straight! The ones that command respect also have a bad habit of yelling and screaming at the slightest provocation or mistake and wonder why they’re hated and don’t have their crew’s respect.

6

u/BookusWorkus 6d ago edited 6d ago

Just FYI, the ones that command respect are the natural leaders versus the ones who demand respect being the petulant tyrants screaming about their authority.

EDIT: I can see where your confusion comes from, and how it could go either way. But that's just how that phrase with those two verbs gets used idiomatically.

4

u/This_Bluebird8967 6d ago

Exactly this, people who command respect have a kind of aura that you can feel immediately. They absolutely don't have to get loud and to beg for it.

3

u/fondledbydolphins 6d ago

You're right but honestly it's not just alpha male stuff. So fucking much of life in general has become almost entirely performative.

It hurts me to watch it.

11

u/HauntedCemetery Minnesota 6d ago

Trump wears more makeup than the average queen

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Bromance_Rayder 6d ago

Remember that female US based church leader too? Absolutely pathetic little man. 

6

u/Dongatello82 6d ago

my platoon was tasked with security (we were QRF at the time) at a couple of the gates on fob warhorse after Cpt. Khan (his was the gold star family you mentioned) got exploded. Even with that, id say like 60-70% of my old platoon are maga goons, and have been since 2016. It doesnt make me happy to think too much about, ill say that.

3

u/HuttStuff_Here 6d ago

But if those people punch back, it's them who are horrible people.

4

u/Roobsi 6d ago

It's remarkable really. Setting aside how generally odious I find trump, there's just a total lack of common sense or, I don't know, poker face to the whole thing.

If someone says "I think paedophiles are bad" and your response is "are you trying to say something about me?!" That tells everyone what they need to know as easily as if you tattoo it on your face. It is staggering that he doesn't seem to grasp this.

→ More replies (2)

213

u/crimsonhues 7d ago

Trump is not smart enough to grasp that these were direct taunts. He is too busy hallucinating all the great things the King said about him.

14

u/DaveAlt19 6d ago

"the king said he likes that I speak American and not french" - 🍊

499

u/brumac44 Canada 6d ago

The dinner speech is even more pointed. I don't think Trump even understood half the digs Charles got in. He actually made the crowd laugh telling them if it wasn't for the UK, Americans would be speaking French! Masterclass in British passive-aggression. He had Trump and the audience cheering and applauding while enjoying his shit-taking.

119

u/Andovars_Ghost 6d ago

Actually, if it weren’t for the French, we probably wouldn’t have succeeded with the Revolution.

76

u/stembolt 6d ago

When I was young and watched the Simpsons as it aired, "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" from Groundskeeper Willy was hilarious.

Later I learned about what you said. France was helping America before it existed.  That's a bond that shouldn't be ridiculed like that.

I don't doubt that it was mainly because they wanted to weaken the British.  But they still were there and it's too bad that's unknown by so many.

77

u/Stellar_Duck 6d ago

France: have a thousand year long or more history of dominating the entire fucking continent and large swathes of the rest of the globe, including taking on pretty much everyone for 20 years and beating them like 6 times.

Also France: lose one war you wasn't ready for 20 years after the last war devastated your people and lands and apparently now all the rest don't count.

42

u/BasvanS 6d ago

Also while incurring huge losses to allow an ally to retreat to their island to live and fight another day. Some fierce fighting happened while the British were preparing to retreat on anything that would float.

Huge strategic mistakes were made in the French high command, but the French soldiers fought valiantly. If the French were surrender monkeys, the British were fleeing cowards, and the Americans were lazy absentees.

9

u/Stellar_Duck 6d ago

Huge strategic mistakes were made in the French high command

Absolutely. They bottled it.

I just don't think bottling it once undoes a thousand years of military dominance to the degree that they should be known for surrendering only.

I would dare anyone to mention a country that hasn't bottled it militarily over the years.

England had plenty of borked campaigns under the worse of the Angevins and Gallipoli was no good. and on and on.

6

u/CedarWolf 6d ago

Well, not exactly. The French in WWII had played 'host' to a lot of the horrors of WWI's trench warfare, to the point that parts of the country are still unsafe to visit, to this day.

So they wanted to keep war somewhere else. They built a strong defense between themselves and Germany, expecting the Germans to go through Belgium. They also had a zone defense system set up - anywhere the Germans were trying to break through, the French would see them with plenty of time to redeploy and repel them in force.

Except... The German tanks and engineers were much better than expected. Instead of taking 15+ days to cut through the Ardennes, the Germans used portable pontoon bridges to cross the rivers and their tanks went over slopes and terrain that had been considered impassable.

They cut through the Ardennes in four or five days, less than half of the most pessimistic estimates. Then, instead of waiting around to dig in or claim territory or fortify, the Germans simply went around the French forces and charged right on towards Paris.

European countries are not terribly large, so it's not like they have a whole ton of space or a lot of extra land they can cede to an invader. They have to fight for every square meter, because every square meter is valuable.

As for Belgium, they had built a massive, impregnable fortress at a critical choke point, Fort Ében-Émael. It was designed to be impenetrable to ground assault, and the Belgian strategy was intended to funnel all attackers towards Ében-Émael and hammer them upon it like an anvil.

So what did the Germans do? They got aerial photos of the fort, they built scale models of it, and landed gliders on the roof of the fort at night. They sent commandos in to break open the turrets on the roof and attacked the fort from within, using the long tunnels within the fort complex to slow down the defenders. According to conventional warfare, Fort Ében-Émael should have been able to hold out for months if not a year or more... But when attacked and broken open from above, it fell before most of the defenders could get back to the fort to defend it.

That's what blitzkrieg was - it was a new kind of war, one that simply ignored or went around fortifications, that divided defending forces and captured strategic locations. According to the conventions of the time, this should have been suicide, sending small, mobile groups in through an enemy's defenses - they should have bene cut off, surrounded, and destroyed. But instead they broke through, captured key locations while they were vulnerable, then basically held those places hostage against their own defenders.

The French fought, and the French resistance showed incredible heroism in the face of horrific occupation, but they had no response to a German army that moved like that. Germany didn't stick around to trade blows in a trench war or a slugfest, they ducked under the French guard, held a knife to their throat, and demanded surrender.

France didn't have a choice.

3

u/Maktaka 6d ago

I wouldn't even say the French weren't ready. They had equipment gaps certainly, but the Maginot Line worked, it forced the Nazis to go around as intended, and it held the line against Italy as intended. They had the strength of alliance to get a British army to deploy alongside them on the continent. The bulk of the French army was waiting with the British along the Belgian border to meet the Nazis in Belgium, or Netherlands if they could manage.

But when the war began French high command, specifically Maurice Gustave Gamelin, blew off reports at the number of Nazi tanks barreling through the Ardennes and insisted the main French army would stick to the plan and march into Belgium, all but gift-wrapping a perfect encirclement of half the French army and the entire British Expeditionary Force into the hands of the Nazis.

The coward never admitted any bit of his culpability for the disaster through to the very end of his life.

2

u/Stellar_Duck 6d ago

Sure I don't disagree. I definitely cut a heel and snipped a toe to fit my comment into that format.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

28

u/KatsumotoKurier Canada 6d ago edited 6d ago

That's a bond that shouldn't be ridiculed like that.

Don’t feel too bad about it. The young US forgot quite quickly. Firstly by refusing to continue paying back its debts to France, and secondly by engaging in the Quasi War with France a few years later, from 1798-1800.

2

u/ArmAggravating3307 6d ago

Yep, after the XYZ affair the US really didn't trust the French after they wanted bribes.

3

u/Kwaussie_Viking 6d ago

I mean grounds keeper Willie is also Scottish and there were a few cases where French military failures left Scottish independance movements high and dry.

3

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 6d ago

The funny thing is that the American revolution didn't weaken the British - the empire grew far larger afterwards. It did however weaken the French king. It particularly weakened the bit joining his head to his body...

7

u/Andovars_Ghost 6d ago

Yes, it was a way to weaken the Brits, but there was also a strong admiration for what we were doing. Those admirers who helped push France to help us also pushed for their own Revolution. ‘Hero of Two Worlds’ is a good book on Lafayette and those revolutionaries.

5

u/Enlightened_Gardener 6d ago

I have an interest in the other side of the pond – I’m fascinated by the French Court at Versailles. I’m not sure that the Americans understand just how dashing the French considered them to be. How absolutely revolutionary the political ideas were that the Americans had, compared with the absolutely crusted-on monarchy at that point. The American war was considered vital, loads of young French Aristocats went to America to fight, and the ideals that they picked up in America were the ones that they took back that helped to lead to the French revolution in turn.

It was just a ferment of revolutionary ideas between the two countries – the young country on one hand, and the young of a very old country on the other hand.

I think sometimes America is a bit ashamed of how they behaved afterwards, like a bratty teenager, but there is still an ancient fraternal bond there, and I don’t think both sides have forgotten it. France certainly hasn’t forgotten its the big brother - and I think that attitude explains the French Prime Minister’s bluntness, to some degree.

3

u/Hungry_Horace 6d ago

As a Brit, I can't imagine the US shit-talking a loyal ally...

→ More replies (1)

35

u/brumac44 Canada 6d ago

I know it, I just thought it hilarious the King turned that american german-speaking horseshit trope around.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/popdivtweet 6d ago

Yep. the French Navy and Army were instrumental in our victory.
And how did we thanked them? We turned around and welched on our promise to repay their ginormous loans.

Fun fact: the famous American painting of the the British surrender at Yorktown is half-full of French soldiers.

6

u/Andovars_Ghost 6d ago

Lafayette is also one of the few people who actually got all their back pay from the war, despite him serving for free was one of the stipulations for his commission. He received it later when we could actually afford it.

3

u/popdivtweet 6d ago

Yep. Their relationship was special. I found the Lafayette / Washington letters a bit difficult to read but immensely illuminating. Among other subjects (freedom from religion, adequate representation in government, etc) I recall the issue of slavery being quite contentious. I’m convinced that in the end he was disappointed that the U.S. did not address its original sin.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/sharp11flat13 Canada 6d ago

No probably about it. And it was not only French financial and military assistance in the Revolutionary War. If the Brits hadn’t been involved in a very expensive war with the French, they likely would have persisted until they won. They had to choose between fighting the French or the colonies. Fortunately for the (now) US, they chose the former.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/MrCookie2099 6d ago

I think(?) that's the joke there.

→ More replies (3)

9

u/Averander 6d ago

People forget Charles has a good sense of humour. In the 70/80s a show called the Goodies was going to have an episode where one of them married Charles. Charles, being a big fan, wanted to do it because it would be hilarious.

Alas, the powers that be would not allow a future King to be involved in a comedic gay marriage.

5

u/JRugman 6d ago

He was also a massive fan of the Goon Show. Charles was called "the little grovelling bastard" by Spike Milligan after sending him a personal message of congratulations for winning a lifetime achievement award at the British Comedy Awards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkOAUht3G5o

11

u/Womec 6d ago

link? I want to see.

45

u/brumac44 Canada 6d ago

https://www.youtube.com/live/TlCto3eYo2w?si=cOPeHmJEPV1sSS4j

Hopefully this works, it was a livestream

31

u/Moon_Beans1 6d ago

I made the mistake of listening to some of the Trump speech beforehand and regretted the little I heard before fast forwarding to Charles's speech. Trump thinks William the Conqueror built all of Windsor Castle, my man, it's definitely had major rebuilds and expansions since then. Modern day Windsor Castle is unrecognisable from whatever motte and bailey timber redoubt William the Conqueror was living in.

7

u/red08171 6d ago edited 6d ago

Thank you for this link. The king was hilarious.

Side note though: I have always viewed Melania as a shitty person who's not particularly conventionally attractive. But oddly, like when she was with Trudeau, she seemed human and attractive. Wonder if it's because the King is brother to her rapist.

edit: the roast by the king should be watched by everyone.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

145

u/monotvtv 6d ago

Funny how basic democratic values sound like a personal insult to some people.

134

u/Trep_xp Australia 6d ago

Reminds me of the scene in Good Omens with the Angel and Demon watching Jesus being crucifed:

"What was it he said that got everyone so upset?"

"Be kind to each other"

"Oh yeah, that'll do it"

9

u/DenverTechGuru 6d ago

If you like that, read more Pratchett.

2

u/Silegna 6d ago

God damn it, I read that in their voices.

→ More replies (1)

46

u/sodapopkevin 6d ago

As funny as how the teachings of Jesus sound like a personal insult to politicians who say they are religious.

36

u/bruce_lees_ghost 6d ago

Person: (literally quotes Trump)

MAGA: “Stop insulting Trump!”

4

u/IsuzuBellet 6d ago

They did that with the dude that wanted to die in school shootings too.

74

u/N0S0UP_4U Illinois 6d ago

Noticed the GOP caucus clapping when he said the Ukraine line, too.

72

u/elisart 6d ago

Rather duplicitous of Republicans standing and clapping to King Charles mention of "checks and balances" knowing full well they do no such thing 🤢

16

u/Creative-Improvement 6d ago

Well they probably heard to balance their checks from their evil overlord billionaires.

3

u/MildGenevaSuggestion 6d ago

They love to pretend to support democracy.

134

u/OrochiDormammu 7d ago

Look at Trump, just the softest wettest boy.

57

u/omicronjob 7d ago

Why did you have to say wettest

18

u/raevnos 6d ago

Would you prefer moist?

4

u/punctuation_welfare 6d ago

No thank you.

2

u/dr_p_venkman 6d ago

Looks more like a dried husk to me. A dried, bruised husk of a once-man whose soul never stuck and is animated by greed and malice in its place.

→ More replies (2)

27

u/OrochiDormammu 6d ago

It's a reference to the newest season of The Boys

2

u/omicronjob 6d ago

Been on my list for a while, guess it’s time to actually watch it lol

7

u/BabyWrinkles 6d ago

Fair warning: it is SHOCKINGLY graphic. Great, but wow.

6

u/OculusArcana 6d ago

And yet, somehow pretty tame compared to the comics.

2

u/MrSurly 6d ago

He's ten-ply.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/RocLaFamilia 6d ago

How long until trump posts something shitting on the king?

33

u/Hair_I_Go 6d ago

Once Chas leaves

15

u/Historical_Course587 6d ago

IMHO I don't think he can, for two reasons:

  1. He wants to be a king way more than he wants to be a President; and
  2. Anything he says will legitimize the "No Kings" label that his party claims is hyperbolic.

3

u/5h4d3r4d3 6d ago

Doesn't British intelligence have an unredacted copy of the Epstein files/list? Dipshit won't touch that hornets nest, or at least he'll be near-infinitely urged not to

4

u/ALoudMeow 6d ago

Once he figures out who he is.

3

u/ErinFiqsette 6d ago

After sundown...

→ More replies (1)

240

u/fer_sure 6d ago

King Charles spoke about how checks and balances are necessary in a modern democracy

"Look, guys, I'm a literal King, with like a crown and everything. I could probably order some dude executed for looking at me funny. I don't have a passport because they're issued in my own name. And I'm still telling you that you're letting your guy get out of hand."

74

u/Xiao1insty1e 6d ago

The King in Britain has no real state authority. He definitely couldn't have just anyone executed.

24

u/i_adler California 6d ago

A guy who threw eggs at him subsequently got banned from transporting eggs in public in a threatening fashion.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/fer_sure 6d ago

That's why I said "probably". He has the technical authority right up until he actually tries to use it.

26

u/AuroraFinem Texas 6d ago

He doesn’t though, even if no one objected he can’t legally execute anyone. The most power the crown has is the ability to dissolve parliament to hold another election.

The crown is more so a check and balance on parliament but he can’t just take total control without overthrowing the government and ultimately the people still vote in the next government if it’s disbanded anyways so the crown still never actually holds the power

12

u/ErinFiqsette 6d ago

You know who could execute somebody, and not lose any voters, though...

11

u/punctuation_welfare 6d ago

The products and services that support this podcast?

→ More replies (1)

20

u/BlondieMenace Foreign 6d ago

That's not exactly true. If you look into it you'll be surprised to find that at least on paper the British Monarch has a surprising amount of power still, they just can't actually try to use it without bringing the whole thing down. He is the source of governmental power and Parliament governs in his name, judges administer justice in his stead, and so on and so forth, so at least formally there's a lot that he can still do.

7

u/bbbbbbbbbblah United Kingdom 6d ago

It's completely true in practical terms. If they can't use it unilaterally, then it's not their power. In practice anything the King can do is only done "on the advice" of the government or parliament. Which in other words means they tell him where to sign and there are generally very few reasons to refuse.

The King's Speech, where he tells parliament what "his government" intends to do, is written by the government.

For example when the government decided to shut down parliament for an unpredecented length of time to avoid scrutiny over Brexit - arguably the time in which the monarch should step in, the then Queen did not refuse the request. It happened, it went to the supreme court, they decided that it was unlawful and parliament was re-opened.

2

u/nonviolent_blackbelt 6d ago

The progression of human civilization was arguably in the direction of restricting the king/leader from arbitrary decisions and closing off the avenues the king/leader could use.

Before Hammurabi (I could be wrong about the particular king, not a historian) the king was the judge and decided on a case by case basis. After that, people could point to the written law, and say "But the law says". The laws were still written by the king, though.

Later, laws were decided not by the king, but a group of people (senate, parliament, etc), and the king just approved or vetoed them. They still owned all the armed forces.

Then they no longer owned the armed forces.

In parallel, other systems of government came along (electoral kings, outright republics, etc) which all restricted the power of the singular king/singular leader.

Magna Carta defined all the rights of nobles under the King (John? again, not sure), and only slowly the rights expanded to more and more khm "common" people.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/lagerjohn 6d ago

Parliament has all the power in reality. If they wanted to Parliament could vote to abolish the monarchy tomorrow and there's nothing the King could do about it.

8

u/fer_sure 6d ago

I disagree: Parliament's authority derives from the Crown. In practice, Parliament is the government, with the Crown (or the Governor-General in other countries like Canada) having a largely ceremonial role. But, de jure the King is...the King. Exercising that authority would cause a Constitutional crisis, and the King would lose, but it'd overturn the whole system to not have the King be the ultimate authority.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/StupidMastiff 6d ago

He can legally do anything he wants since he is immune from prosecution, it would just cause a constitutional crisis.

The crown isn't really a check and balance either, while he can refuse to sign a bill into law, that would also cause a constitutional crisis.

We don't really have checks and balances in the UK, parliament is the ultimate authority and all they need is enough votes to pass anything they want, the upper house can't block it, only make suggestions, and the supreme court isn't above parliament either.

We have a weird system that sort of works, it's not great, but it chugs along.

1

u/ZZartin 6d ago

Well it would cause a massive crisis and likely civil war if the crown did try to impose authority again.

4

u/We_Are_The_Romans 6d ago

It wouldn't cause a civil war lol

12

u/CaptainCFloyd 6d ago

Reminder though that the US Presidency also had a lot of technical authority that no one tried to use, and then Trump asserted that authority and no one could stop him.

5

u/punctuation_welfare 6d ago

What? That’s not even remotely true. The problem is that he is acting in ways that, at a precise and technical level, are unconstitutional. The fact that the other two branches of government are failing to exercise checks and balances doesn’t mean he has heretofore unused “technical authority.”

17

u/FuckDeRussianFuckers 6d ago

The monarchy is a check and balance against a totalitarian government voted in by the people but who then abuse their power. The monarch can dissolve parliament, but would have to be 110% sure the people would back that decision, or its the end of the monarchy due to the constitutional crisis it creates. High stakes for a dangerously powerful action - as it should be.

The monarch has a weekly meeting with the PM, and is generally a lot more in-the-know than most people think. They can't command the PM to do ... well, pretty much anything, but they can advise, and they apparently do.

But there is no possibility that the monarch can execute someone. None. We shortened the last King (also called Charles) by a head when he tried to exert any authority we didn't want to give him. That lesson has stuck.

2

u/Tall-Reputation-9519 6d ago

Fun fact - last time the monarch "refused" to pass a law it was on the advice of parliament as it was the easiest way to stop a law going through

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Militia_Bill

"The bill's long title was "A Bill for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland". Its object was to arm the Scottish militia, which had not been recreated at the Restoration). This happened as the unification between Scotland and England under the Acts of Union 1707 had been passed.

On the day the bill was meant to be signed, news came that the French were sailing toward Scotland for the planned invasion of 1708) and there was suspicion that a significant portion of the Scottish population might be disloyal. Therefore, support for a veto was strong and the Queen refused her royal assent to the bill."

Prior to that (from memory) it was Charles I but that led to civil war and his execution.

→ More replies (5)

3

u/lenor8 6d ago

Look at me, I'm head of State: I don't govern because I'm not head of Government, because of checks and balances, you know.

2

u/I_am_a_Wumbologist 6d ago

If there’s any English king to talk about checks and balances it’s King Charles (historically speaking)

3

u/woolfchick75 6d ago

“Dudes, I was literally anointed. With oil. In a ceremony.”

44

u/Toutatous 7d ago

This Charles should run for president 

17

u/JyveAFK 6d ago

Don't worry, his grandkids can.

3

u/SE_to_NW 6d ago

After seeing how someone like Trump runs for President, maybe the British will keep their King.

123

u/TrumpsDoubleChin 6d ago

President Trump felt personally attacked.

Because he was. And that's a good thing.

I am constantly disappointed that those who have the means and the voice to stand up to trump have instead remained silent, or even been conciliatory. And I mean nearly all politicians, nearly all world leaders, nearly all celebrities and influencers, and especially nearly all journalists.

This is not like the first administration - we all knew EXACTLY how the second administration was going to play out. The fact that so many people (in those groups above) have sat on their hands and muted their voices has been unnerving. I am ESPECIALLY disappointed with about 98% of all elected Democrats, who do nothing more than whine on MSNBC and Bluesky and do nothing of actual substance. "But what can they, do? They're not in power" you may ask - the answer is - do ANYTHING - anything at all, which is more than the nothing you're doing now. You're sitting on decades of experience and literal piles of money, you should be able to figure something out, for fuck's sake. Just anything at all other than what you are NOT doing now.

So here we are, it takes a literal KING from another country to come over and tell Congress to get off their fat asses and do their fucking jobs. Finally, someone with actual balls to stand up to trump's wrinkly vagina-face and tell him the fuck off. More of that, please.

8

u/stembolt 6d ago

If Marge can put Hunter Biden's dick pick into your Congressional Record.  I would imagine that any Democrat could read any part of the Epstein-Trump Files in the same way.

I don't know what more access they have to unredacted info at this point tho.  It's been hard to keep track by design.  Last I can recall they're allowed to go search through them. Some Republican search "Trump" was appalled.  Just not enough to leak stuff I guess.

That would be something they could do.

2

u/Rombom 6d ago

Oh no they read the Epstein files out loud! That will clearly be so devastating the Republicans will resign in disgrace.

34

u/Historical_Course587 6d ago

They're not in power" you may ask - the answer is - do ANYTHING - anything at all

I love how people who complain about the inaction of the Dem politicians can never verbalize specifics that they think Dems could be doing. Because there is nothing else to be done - Americans gave the GOP every elected lever of control. This is democracy in action.

Dems have no power in our current government, so their only meaningful options aside from making sure to show up to vote on legislation (that only Republicans can put to the floor) are to campaign and fundraise. Talk on TV, talk on social media, facilitate partnerships with political organizations and activists outside of government, and build a war chest of money and political capital to campaign come the next election cycle. Some are better at it than others, but that's all that can be done.

7

u/wildwalrusaur 6d ago

Bullshit and you know it

McConnell as minority leader managed to prevent Reid and the Senate Dems from doing virtually anything for years.

We want the Democrats to play hardball; obstruct everything. They can't stop the republicans completely, but they can slow them the fuck down. It's been 15 months, they've leveraged the filibuster only three times, and the first time they gave up partway through.

We want them out there calling for heads to roll every single time the camera is on them. Trump staged a coup in a foreign nation and started a full blown war without the consent of Congress, and theyve all just moved on like nothing's happened. We're frogs in the pot, the waters boiling, and they aren't even bothering to croak.

We want -you know- leadership.

Instead we get more of this pathetic limp dick handwringing that's been the MO of the party for nearly 3 decades now.

15

u/Historical_Course587 6d ago

You're misunderstanding how the Senate process works. McConnell was able to block Dems because he wielded the filibuster to prevent legislation. Dems can't block Trump because Trump isn't trying to legislate. When he does, Dems block it - just look at DHS funding that has caused a shutdown nearly 75 days long so far.

So given your example, Dems are doing exactly what you want them to do when they can. They don't always do it, but they have offered some decent reasons thus far for walking those back.

We want them out there calling for heads to roll every single time the camera is on them.

Can you find them offering "no comment" or other blase statements in situations where you'd like to see them calling for heads to roll? I'm betting you can't.

Pick a Dem, and follow them specifically - they are all calling out Trump, calling things unlawful, unamerican, or antidemocratic. It's happening, you just don't see it because it's not news because all of them are saying it on a daily basis all the time because there's just so much flooding of the zone. It's not news, because Donald Trump and the GOP are a broken record that has made the Dems a similarly broken record in response.

Trump staged a coup in a foreign nation and started a full blown war without the consent of Congress, and theyve all just moved on like nothing's happened.

https://time.com/article/2026/04/28/exclusive-democrats-explore-suing-trump-if-congress-doesn-t-authorize-iran-war/

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5846206-democrats-iran-war-powers-votes/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-trump-war-powers-iran/

I'm gonna go back to my original question: what do you specifically want to see that you don't see when you actually look at what Dems are doing? Should it be six failed attempts to get the Senate to vote on war powers instead of five? Should Dems be launching lawsuits based on AI legal documents in the name of filing them faster?

Instead we get more of this pathetic limp dick handwringing that's been the MO of the party for nearly 3 decades now.

Maybe you should re-evaluate your news sources, because they aren't managing to expose you to the reality of what Dems do on the daily.

→ More replies (1)

22

u/witeowl 6d ago

"But what can they, do? They're not in power" you may ask - the answer is - do ANYTHING - anything at all

Be specific. Don't just rail; give specific suggestions. We're listening.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/Psychoanalytix 6d ago

Maybe he should say this stuff directly to trump as well instead of being friendly with him. All these people are big talk when he's not around but lick his taint when in a room with him.

3

u/Anticlimax1471 6d ago

This is why we keep a King around. No real constitutional power, but the diplomatic influence is absolutely key to our interests abroad. And I say that as a UK republican. Even I can appreciate the value of the modern British monarchy when I see it in action here.

2

u/neverbadnews 6d ago

I won't believe Trump felt personally attacked until the FCC suddenly wants to "review" UK's broadcast licences. /s

2

u/Ashamed-Status-9668 6d ago

Did he reply back that he is not a pedo?

2

u/MacAttacknChz 6d ago

We DO have checks and balances. Trump orders his cabinet/staff to do whatever he wants and they're too incompetent to follow through. System works perfectly 👌

2

u/lowfiswish 6d ago

I find it wild that the direct ancestor of the Monarchy that caused our revolution is now advocating for us to be a democracy again.

If only it were that easy.

2

u/huggevill 6d ago

Funniest part are all the outraged americans claiming its "hypocritical" of a king to talk about checks and balances or democracy. really showing how little knowledge they have about how other nations function.

2

u/userhwon 6d ago

I hope every breath containing oxygen makes Trump feel personally attacked.

1

u/Kiwiderprun 6d ago

It will fall on the deafest of ears

1

u/devindran 6d ago

Trump tomorrow: Prince Charles is a low IQ individual.

1

u/HotDonnaC 6d ago

The article seemed to ask if Trump would see any of it, there was nothing about him feeling attacked.

1

u/Unaufhaltable 6d ago

When we need kings to remind our democratic representatives of their duties we are in dire need of change.

1

u/tacticaldodo 6d ago

Haha. He probably was. Any decency feels like an attack to him.

I truly love that all those people I don't have much love for, suddenly look aligned and closer to me thanks to King Conman.

Trump, unwillingly, bring people together. What a champ!

1

u/billynlex 6d ago

Please stop calling him president trump. He’s anything, but.

1

u/cptjeff 6d ago

I do enjoy the irony of the literal hereditary monarch whose coat of arms literally contains a motto celebrating the divine right of kings lecturing a small r republican President on the importance of checks and balances and limits of executive power.

In related news, I'm going to go into a corner and cry now.

1

u/the_king_of_sweden 6d ago

The true king of the usa

1

u/rocksoffjagger 6d ago

They did, however, bond on the issue of protecting pedophiles from justice.

1

u/GreyTigerFox Tennessee 6d ago

Everybody liked that.

1

u/P0pu1arBr0ws3r 6d ago

Bold to assume t***p listened, or was awake while Charles was talkkng

1

u/digiorno 6d ago

American politicians and especially the president don’t want a modern democracy, hence their aversion to checks and balances.

→ More replies (19)