this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024

82 points (94.6% liked)

And Finally...

1020 readers

151 users here now

A place for odd or quirky world news stories.

Elsewhere in the Fediverse:

Rules:

Be excellent to each other
The Internet will resurface old "And finally..." material. Just mark it [VINTAGE]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

King Charles did not know what cling film was and ‘shrieked’ the first time he saw it (www.joe.co.uk)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

King Charles III had no idea what cling film was and “shrieked” the first time he saw it, an author has claimed in an unauthorised biography which detailed a selection of interesting stories about our new monarch.

Author Tom Bower said he interviewed over 120 people for his biography of Charles, entitled ‘Rebel Prince’.

The book delves into Charles’s struggles to overcome unpopularity, and includes some pretty unexpected tales along the way.

Explaining how the royal reportedly had his first encounter with cling film, Bower wrote: “He walked into the dining room and shrieked. Fearing the worst, Camilla dashed in after him. ‘What’s this?’ asked her husband, pointing at the food.

“’It’s cling film, darling,’ she replied.”

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 53 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The important detail, the year this happened, is left out. Cling film was invented during his lifetime so it had to be new to him at some point. Of course, the later the more embarrassing.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The phrase "asked her husband" implies it was 2005 at the earliest, which I think is pretty embarrassing

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's also entirely possible that the shriek was for comic effect, but the serious people in the room took it seriously.

"Remarkable! There is an invisible force-field around my dinner!"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

It seems pretty on-brand for King Sir Prince Charles though, maybe I just want to believe!

[–] [email protected] 43 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I'm usually wary of "unauthorised biographies" but apparently Tom Bower is one of the best. He's been sued for libel for almost every one, and won each time lol

It was all going so well up to 2019

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Bower

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Yep, after reading that, 2019 seems like a good cutoff.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The real surprise is that Camilla was there, so he must have been getting on a bit by then.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

Not really, he's been seeing her for most of his life.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

I am hoping that he shrieked because he learned about it when someone had saran-wrapped the toilet he was trying to piss into. Can you imagine?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

when was this?

[+] [email protected] -15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Whut the fuck. Fuck the English. Fuck a monarch. It's 2024 you wankers.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Not even English, but fuck you too, cunt

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I was wondering what the common link between all these shit takes I’ve been seeing was

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Scrap the anachronistic monarchy and replace it with a President… the election might help to unite the country. The uk needs more politicians. What could possibly go wrong with electing a president? It’s not like it could destroy a country from the inside. That’s never happened.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Historically Monarchies have been far more damaging to human rights in general.

https://historycooperative.org/history-of-human-rights/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

About as valuable as saying. More shit happened in the far past then recent past.

Democracy is a pretty recent experiment. And over the time it has grown. Some pretty evil shit has been done in its name. Comparing it to 1000s of rears in the past where few nations past of any power had other options. Is hardly cause and effect.

Nothing more then desperate point scoring on either side.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

*than

The point was to show why there aren't many Monarchies anymore and the ones that are, usually amount to little more than a mascot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Unfortunately fails when you look at timing.

The UK started democracy in 1690. When we cut the kings head off. Messed up the republic with religiose zealotry. And started our current constitutiomal Monarchy with a powerless monarch.

Slavery in Africa begun after that mainly started by the Spanish. But that British democracy did some of the most harm raising cities.

The finally ended it in 1838. But democratic America built entirly from it continued for nearly 40 years more.

The 2nd World War was started by democratic Germany. Along with the holocaust.

I'm sorry but no. Democracy was at no point a change in human morality. Humans were shit under all forms of management. Democracy was simply no worse.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

I'm actually on the side of a republic, but the ownership of the royals in the UK is...interesting.

If we were to decide to get rid tomorrow, they don't suddenly not exist. They essentially move into a position where they are more tied to the outcome of Britain than many of our politicians, and the blocker on them holding political opinions is revoked - not that it ever fucking stopped them.

Furthermore, they outright own a lot of land, businesses, and buildings. They would own this if we got rid, and would basically hold enough capital to be multi-billionaires for many generations, if not centuries.

IMO the best thing that the UK can do is chip away at their power, while also reducing them to a point where they make income that is tied to the populace rather than making more money as crown estate custodians. If the people are poor, cut their income or push them towards more marketing of the royals to make money for the country.