World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
As a British person that's something I thought I'd never see.
Arrested on his birthday too.
The late queen's protection of him was a blemish on her record. I'm happy the king has cut him loose to face consequences..... I wonder if they asked him before the arrest...
And what a record it was! Empire’s torture, internment and state killings, racist borders and racist policing, catastrophic wars sold on certainty they didn’t have, colonialism and ethnic cleansing and genocides, a little bit of family racism drama as a cherry on top, and a strong propaganda machine to sell her as a sweet old woman without much power and to ensure people still defend her and worship her.
Her record was too tarnished to blemish.
They didn't.
"The Press Association is reporting that neither King Charles nor Buckingham Palace was informed in advance of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2026/feb/19/police-arrest-former-prince-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-sandringham-latest-updates
That's an interesting development then. Nothing stopping the king from issuing a pardon
I mean…
I have to assume thr relatively precarious position the royals have is stopping him
It's the continual back and forth they've had for the last several centuries.
They don't want to lose more power or come off as weak, but they also don't want to wield too much power and be removed.
Yeah. I think throwing his brother under the bus would probably earn the king a whole lot of goodwill with the public, whereas pardoning him would outrage people.
Though not much came of Jimmy Saville, but Andrew’s not dead
Charles also said something like "the law must take its course" in reaction to the news, so I think he might just let it play out
(source)
Not saying Charles will do an about face like Biden, nor will I say that he’s not just throwing Andrew under the bus to avoid additional fallout, but let’s see what he does if/when Andrew faces real consequences.
Yeah, sucks that Biden had to do that. But he clearly saw how trump was going to weaponise the doj. They were already reneging on the plea deal that Biden jr had made.
Uh, yeah there is. It needs to be recommended by ministers.
The charge is sharing goverment documents. The penalty is a fine.
Where are you hearing that? The charge is misconduct in public office, and while the initial arrest for it has been made based on sharing documents, the penalty itself can have a maximum of life in prison. Life in prison won't happen, but given they've now searched 4 properties, I don't think he's getting away with just a fine either.
He can't do that.
No the King has that power. It is exercised today under the guidance of other officials, but the King can still use the power without reccomendation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_of_mercy
It is crazy how much power the UK monarchs still have. They choose not to exercise it often, but the option remains.
So I dove into the law a bit more and the King must follow the ministers reccomendation when asked to pardon, but there is no indication that the King is limited on his ability to use this mechanism.
However parliment can then check it if they so choose.
Feel free to correct me though, it's complicated text and I may be mistaken
The convention is that the royal family don't use these powers unilaterally. There's an unspoken agreement here that they get to keep their palaces and fancy lifestyle on the understanding that they keep out of politics and legal issues so while Charlie could in theory do something like this, he also knows that if he did, it would pretty much signal the end of the monarchy in the UK.
Conventions. That's what kept the US somewhat sane, until it didn't. How is that going again?
Yes, looking at the reaction to the Epstein fallout around the world, the US is an outlier.
We remember the whole Brexit fiasco and well Boris Johnson in general.
No democracy should rely on good faith in its legal code
Yet to varying extents, they all do.
I don't know how that negates the issue. It's still an issue even if everyone else does it.
Almost certainly; Andrew lives on Charles’ private estate.
I'm not British but I'm also very surprised. I can't help but wonder if they would have dared had he still had his title?
The cops took the phrase "the icing on the cake" literally, and I think it was an excellent choice.
I would assume that the king and other interested parties will have known this was coming for a while and that is why he lost his title.
Maybe, I'm not so sure. I had thought they knew it was very likely the accusations were true, but they spent a lot of time sidestepping action. If public criticism hadn't been so relentless, they might have been content to sweep it under the rug, as is tradition.
But I have never kept close track of the royal family, largely because I always assumed they were untouchable.
That's sort of my point though, they spent years protecting him and then suddenly a few months ago something made them turn on a dime and strip him of his titles very rapidly. I suspect that "something" was being told the police had enough evidence to arrest him.
Someone asked Ernest Hemingway how he lost all his money.
"Gradually, then all at once."
Same situation. One person says something and it's dismissed. Ten people say it and it becomes gossip fodder. A hundred people say it and it becomes an open secret. A million people say it and he gets arrested.
That's fair. At the time I thought it might be because they were struggling to deal with both the Andrew situation and the Harry drama simultaneously, while Charles was generally more unpopular than his mother, and likely ill.
But if they privately found out something that made the Andrew situation untenable, it makes sense that they would try to distance that ASAP. I wonder whether it's something that has been released already or is even worse.
Charles' statement today on "we support the police", plus letting them search The Lodge, definitely feels like they're leaving him to rot. At least maybe a little.
I wonder if the one that defected with his wife to california had something to do with all of this too, and not just snobbery to his new wife.
I would assume that he’d have more cover as a royal in the UK than as an immigrant in the US. Unless you were saying that he left the royal family in disgust for doing things like cleaning up for Andrew for so long, which I realize now was probably what you intended, but I’ll post this anyway in case someone else gets confused too.
Charles has always hated and envied Andrew. He removed him from Royal duties as soon as he had the power to do so.
What did he envy him for?
Charles has a complex that his parents never loved him, and merely bred him to be Sovereign. It’s why he still refuses to move in to Buckingham Palace. Andrew was unquestionably Elizabeth’s favourite child, with his frequent failures and bankruptcies excused and waved away.
Meanwhile, Charles believes he was forced into an arranged marriage, and when that failed he was forbidden to marry the person he had always loved, with the Queen even refusing to be in the same building for a long time, despite the requirement for an heir and a spare already having been settled.
Andrew was allowed to saddle the family with Fergie without consequence. But Fergie is an entertaining grifter, while Camilla is known as the “laziest woman in England” by her friends, so it’s not surprising she never got on with someone so duty-bound as Elizabeth.
You do not know these people. This is knitting circle talk. Charles removed Andrew because of Epstein and other local infractions, as well as knowledge of him sharing state secrets.
This is detailed in Tom Bower’s thoroughly researched book.
Again, hearsay and a book designed to sell books.
The law wanted to send a clear message, just 25 years too late.
Blame Queen Elizabeth. She was more interested in preserving the monarchy than Andrew's victims. There has to be a better way to promote tourism.
As an American citizen I'm wildly jealous.
The evidence is right there and we're the only ones that don't seem to give a s***.
Got to have a couple of examples of the rich and powerful going away for their crimes so the plebs don't realise how stacked against them the system really is.
Love seeing this creep go down.
surprise muthafucka