• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    3 days ago

    does NOT even live in the jungle

    Fwiw, that’s definitely not a requirement. The King of Australia doesn’t live in Australia, either.

      • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Jungle

        1776, “dense growth of trees and other tangled vegetation,” such as that of some regions in India, from Hindi jangal “desert, forest, wasteland, uncultivated ground,” from Sanskrit jangala-s “arid, sparsely grown with trees,” a word of unknown origin.

        Source: Etymonline

        I can’t tell if you meant to say “uninhibitated” or “uninhabited.” I get the impression you meant the latter, which would be in line with the idea of “desert” or “wasteland.”

        Either way, the history of the word jungle reveals that its root might have applied to what we’d call today a savanna, which is where lions live. So, the title “King of the Jungle” could have made sense for lions at some point.

        • embed_me@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Actually the Indian Gir Lion does live in jungle/forest. As for the history of the word, the present meaning (forest) might’ve been used for longer by now (in India) than the old meaning.

          And funnily enough, the Hindi word “sher” can mean either lion or tiger, although they do have a specific word for tiger, “bagh”. And we do have the same title/phrase in Hindi which could mean either lion or tiger is the king of the jungle. I personally never thought it was the tiger because when I was a child, the Lion King had already been released.

          • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s so interesting! I guess the meme is moot if the question is asked in Hindi, haha.

            I get the connection with the Lion King also. Speaking of animation from childhood, I’m now remembering an episode of Rugrats where the phrase “King of the Jungle” became an argument. Except on that show, the argument was over whether the title belonged to Tarzan or to King Kong.

    • oo1@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      What about that Plantagenet dude?

      According to Baldrick he lives in Australia and is no less legitimate a claim to be king of england than any of those bastards since Dick III. The fact that he hasn’t raised an army and started any wars suggests he might be less of a dick than most of them.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain%27s_Real_Monarch

      Oh - looks like he died, but maybe his offsping.

    • Zwiebel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That’s why ‘von und zu’ exists in German. ‘von’ means ‘of House…’, and ‘zu’ basically means ‘resides in …’. So King von und zu Luxemburg would be King of house Luxemburg who also lives in Luxemburg

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        Interesting. So can someone be “von” multiple places? Charles von Australia und United Kingdom und Canada und New Zealand zu United Kingdom?

      • optional@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Incidentally, in German the lion also isn’t called king of the jungle, but king of the animals. But I don’t know if that means von animals or zu animals 🤔.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Okay, this made me look up if Australia is still a commonwealth. It is, but who the fuck knew India still was? I’m not the only one who didn’t know, right?

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        fwiw the word “commonwealth” is…essentially meaningless. If you hear someone say commonwealth on its own, they’re probably talking about the Commonwealth of Nations as @scholar@lemmy.world described. The Commonwealth of Nations is basically a loose grouping of countries that do various things together. Probably the most noteworthy thing they do together is the Commonwealth Games, a sort of mini-Olympics.

        But several other things also use the word. There’s the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), a grouping of former Soviet states. There’s Australia, a country whose full name (in the way the full name of America is the United States of America) is the Commonwealth of Australia (and in Australia, “the Commonwealth” is sometimes used synonymously with “the federal Government”). There are several states in America which are properly termed commonwealths, such as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

      • scholar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        India is not a commonwealth, but is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations. Charles III is the head of the Commonwealth but not the monarch, he is separately the monarch of some (but not all) Commonwealth countries. Most Commonwealth countries are republics.

        Australia is both a commonwealth (in name) and a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, but those are two separate kinds of commonwealth.

        To summarise: All commonwealths are commonwealths but not all commwealths are the Commonwealth of Nations and not all members of the Commonwealth of Nations are commonwealths (although some are).

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          he is separately the monarch of some (but not all) Commonwealth countries. Most Commonwealth countries are republics

          Also fun fact, some members of the Commonwealth are monarchies, but with a different monarch than House Windsor. Like Malaysia.

        • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          To summarise: All commonwealths are commonwealths but not all commwealths are the Commonwealth of Nations and not all members of the Commonwealth of Nations are commonwealths (although some are).>

          Lmao, well that explains it! So this is how you remain a monarch in a democracy, hide yourself.