79
top 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Gentryfried@feddit.uk 40 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

They didn't rape any teenagers. This is just how royalty worka, obviously their uncle the king will still look out for them.

One of you say they're spongers because they're married; the royal family has multiple properties and plots of land, so it's basically like providing your nieces with one of your spare homes for when they're visiting the country (one of them is married to an italian man i think?).

It's Logical.

[-] huf@hexbear.net 20 points 2 days ago

the entire royal family is spongers

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 28 points 2 days ago

They didn't do anything wrong tbf. If a man wants to give accommodation to his nieces, let him.

[-] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 16 hours ago

They didn't do anything to earn it either...why the hell should a pedophile be allowed to steal money from everyone else to keep his family living in luxury forever?

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 15 hours ago

There is no evidence to suggest that Charles III is a paedophile. If you need to lie and slander to support your argument, you don't have one to begin with.

[-] emeralddawn45@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 14 hours ago

They're Andrews daughters, no one mentioned Charles. But also fuck that whole family, they all should have been executed a long time ago.

[-] kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago

They're literal royalty living off proceeds stolen from the citizens

That's true of all royals, not just daughters of pedophiles.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -5 points 1 day ago
[-] stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 1 day ago

It's tax money. It could be used for better causes.

[-] RamenJunkie@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Is it tax money, or money he was paid then he is paying out?

I mean its a technical difference and I am not really defending anything, I just don't know how it works really.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 1 day ago

The King owns land called the crown estate. He surrenders the profit to the treasury who then pays him back a small fraction of, which he also pays tax on.

The King does not get funded by tax money, just a small portion of what his family's land makes.

The King owns land called the crown estate.

Well he shouldn't.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 1 day ago

Such a proposition is unrealistic. It's his family's land, he's the heir. At least he surrenders it to the government, unlike most land-owners.

It's his family's land, he's the heir.

His family has avoided inheritance tax for centuries. It's totally realistic. Look at all the Republican countries.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 1 day ago

Ah yes, the republican countries with great heads of states like Russia, Turkiye, The USA, etc

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago

Those heads of state don't have Intergenerational wealth built over centuries. Monarchy is corruption on a totally different scale.

[-] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago

Communist and anti-colonialist land reforms show that such a proposition is not unrealistic at all you are just a bootlicker monarchist.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -2 points 1 day ago

It is unrealistic. Communism has never worked.

[-] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 17 hours ago

China is currently on track to beat the west at its own game, and this is post maoist land reform. So regardless of whether you believe China is communist or not, their land reform has functioned perfectly well and has produced a system that is at least as functional as what we have in the west.

[-] Phoenix3875@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

You mean only entitlement can pass by bloodline and not consequences of crime? Yeah, totally makes sense.

[-] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 19 points 2 days ago

Yeah, so are most of the royal family

[-] FishFace@piefed.social 15 points 2 days ago

Because they're... still... royals? What am I missing

[-] IanM42@piefed.world 16 points 2 days ago

Probably because most people thought they’d suffered the same fate as him, and were reduced to being mere mortals.

But yes they are still royals. And another reason to consign the royal family to history.

[-] makingrain@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

I'm with you there. Time to get rid of the largest benefit scroungers around.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 days ago

As one of the largest land-owners, I'm surprised they're 'benefit scroungers'. Did someone tell you they're dole kings?

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

They are welfare queens, just like Walmart and McDonald's are some of the biggest welfare queens on this side of the pond. They didn't buy that land. They didn't farm it. They just "own" it mostly for no real reason.

[-] makingrain@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Did someone tell you that they worked hard to be land owners? Did you believe them?

[-] tenebrisnox@feddit.uk 16 points 2 days ago

Nothing to see here... move along, please, move along... LOOK AT THOSE WORKSHY DISABLED ON PIP BENEFITS OVER THERE!

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago

There is a formula to make out the level of rents staff have to pay to either the Crown Estate or the royal Household because they have to live on the estate. 

It works out as equivalent to 16.7% of their gross pensionable salary.

What the fuck??? That’s for staff, not working royals, so the guy who used to iron Andrew’s shoelaces had to pay 1/6 of his pre-tax salaries in rent to live somewhere he didn’t choose.

[-] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago

Tbf they did choose. They dont have to work there and are free to leave. A lot of people pay 1/3rd of their income in rent, so 1/6th is honestly a pretty good deal IMO

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean, yeah, they chose the job, but I’m assuming they can be reassigned and have to move if their boss moves. I’m sure there’s a long list of applicants, even knowing that, but it’s still kind of fucked up, especially considering that their boss definitely has enough money to pay for each of their employees’ rent, but they don’t. I guess I expected the work conditions to be better (like, some of the best in the commonwealth), but I don’t know why.

[-] IanM42@piefed.world 11 points 2 days ago

Make them pay their rent or get out. Besides I thought they were married?

Spongers, the lot of them.

[-] ladel@feddit.uk 4 points 2 days ago

I think the King is paying for them with his personal money, but it is weird.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The family pulls in a LOT of rent-money. I bet they don't need to pay much rent themselves on family land.

[-] BaraCoded@literature.cafe 4 points 2 days ago

Who's the vampire in the middle of the picture? She freaks me out

[-] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago

Andrew’s wife.

She loved how Epstein would fly her around in first class.

Had an alleged affair with P Diddy.

[-] BaraCoded@literature.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

Wow, that freak would baby oil anything, eh?

[-] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago

I was gonna say she looks like something that was summoned out of the Lemegeton...

[-] Marasenna@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Sarah Ferguson.

She's their mother.

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
79 points (91.6% liked)

United Kingdom

6716 readers
223 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS