How would we get rid of the monarchy in the UK?

they should stay...meh, it's tradition.

Reply 64

Original post by unamujercaliente

they should stay...meh, it's tradition.

so we should converse things because it's tradition? isn't pretty much everything in politics, until it changes, tradition? wouldn't that make democracy a bad thing if it contradicts tradition which, you're implying, is good?

Reply 65

Original post by sleepysnooze

so we should converse things because it's tradition? isn't pretty much everything in politics, until it changes, tradition? wouldn't that make democracy a bad thing if it contradicts tradition which, you're implying, is good?

no, but then if something is tradition, doesn't mean it should be discarded. Monarchy is central to our country's history/culture, and tbh I don't care either way, but then I don't see the moral outrage. And yes, some people are higher ranked than others, it's called human nature since we're hierarchical.

If tradition is evil, then dont' celebrate birthdays, or Christmas. lol..fool.

Reply 66

Original post by paul514

It's also irrelevant as they cost the uk nothing

Posted from TSR Mobile

nothing? nothing?
nothing tra la la?
come on, they cost *something* or else they wouldn't get a government grant
and if you're going to say anything about tourism I suggest you give *some* evidence

Reply 67

Original post by unamujercaliente

no, but then if something is tradition, doesn't mean it should be discarded. Monarchy is central to our country's history/culture, and tbh I don't care either way, but then I don't see the moral outrage. And yes, some people are higher ranked than others, it's called human nature since we're hierarchical.

If tradition is evil, then dont' celebrate birthdays, or Christmas. lol..fool.

do you not distinguish between "good traditions" and "bad traditions"? how is the monarchy/royal family a "good tradition"? why are they good when the concepts they embody are what most people would admit to being bad? history is full of bad concepts so why is conserving an aspect of history good in this sense?

Reply 68

Original post by sleepysnooze

do you not distinguish between "good traditions" and "bad traditions"? how is the monarchy/royal family a "good tradition"? why are they good when the concepts they embody are what most people would admit to being bad? history is full of bad concepts so why is conserving an aspect of history good in this sense?

It's harmless and is central to the culture of the country. but meh, you detest others who think differently to you..cool. mr. Asperger's. I say that since you've violated any number of social protocols...

Reply 69

Original post by unamujercaliente

It's harmless and is central to the culture of the country. but meh, you detest others who think differently to you..cool. mr. Asperger's. I say that since you've violated any number of social protocols...

1) "harmless"? technically a lot of "bad" things are "harmless" - child molestation is "harmless". robbery is "harmless". sexism is "harmless". privacy invasions are "harmless". having a lack of elected leadership is "harmless" < it's all about social construction - only one of these "harmless" things is, to you, good. weird how indoctrination is so difficult to see to you when it's so easy to me.
2) central to culture - how? you think our culture distinguished from france's or australia's is all to do with our queen?! :lol:

you think our cultural mannerisms and our tastes and preferences is to do with the monarchy? gtfo
3) are you *really* saying that I have a mental problem because I think you're wrong about a certain tradition? :lol:

oh honey...

Reply 70

One-Adult-Swim

I am the true king of England, those upon the throne are nowt but imposters. God spoke to me and said I must regather my realm for the sake of goodness. The queen lies when she says she is the defender of the faith. God save your king, meaning me.

Reply 71

Original post by unamujercaliente

Yes, since culture contains many facets, including the monarchy and its institutions. Like centuries of history, and things like what we benefit from including a liberal democracy, stem from the monarchy directly or indirectly.

But meh, seems you're a dude, and want to be "beckon" to you..not really, since I don't give a **** about what some retard Web stranger thinks. Oh, and yes I do believe you have a condition....since you're placing so much energy in what some Web stranger wants, this is how I behave towards strangers who "demand" I beckon to them..lol..aspie.

I'm an aspie for criticising your lack of intelligence :lol:

I guess it's incredibly easy to be an aspie then
also, most dictatorships which end in democracies (e.g. spain) aren't democracies *because* of their old dictatorships. that's such a thoughtless concept. that's like saying "I owe my good health to the fact that I broke my leg a few months ago"

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 72

no, you're an aspie for pathetically trying to cajole me..lolol...cool, bro. I'll take a mental note of your "normal" behaviour... But to answer your point, what do you think the English Civil War, Glorious Revolution, and Hanoverians did or lead to? Didn't they all involved kings and queens at some (or most) levels?

If you choose to despise tradition, fine, but then as asserted it makes you look silly.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 73

username1148663

21

Original post by sleepysnooze

nothing? nothing?
nothing tra la la?
come on, they cost *something* or else they wouldn't get a government grant
and if you're going to say anything about tourism I suggest you give *some* evidence

They do receive a government grant that's correct but it's in return for the government administering and collecting the profits from the crown estate which earns far more.

Perhaps before condemning something you should learn what you are talking about.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 74

Original post by paul514

They do receive a government grant that's correct but it's in return for the government administering and collecting the profits from the crown estate which earns far more.

Perhaps before condemning something you should learn what you are talking about.

Posted from TSR Mobile

surely the crown estates should be owned by the state? the monarchy *was* the state when they "obtained" that land, but now there's a separation of concepts between state and monarchy - surely that land then should be given to the more legitimate entity (the elected one)? saying the monarchy generates more profits from the land in this sense is like saying "my thief is making me so much money for me by iving me pieces of the profit they make from selling my possessions" - the land should be the governments, yet they're grateful that the monarchy is giving them money which they ought to own to begin with.

Reply 75

Original post by Nameless Ghoul

I'd not be criticising people's intelligence if I were you. Let us remember that you are a law dropout because you didn't have the intelligence to continue with the course.
xD

right, so I'm getting 1sts for most of my exams/coursework in politics, yet because I hated law (for all the reasons I've specified) and therefore didn't work hard enough to get better grades, that's "a lack of intelligence". wow. so I suppose you would be getting 1st in engineering if you're doing well in law? and physicists should ace PPE if they ace physics? this is your logic. you're essentially saying that because I do "badly" (it was based on an incredibly low work ethic) in *your* subject, I am bad at all subjects.

Reply 76

Nameless Ghoul

Original post by sleepysnooze

right, so I'm getting 1sts for most of my exams/coursework in politics, yet because I hated law (for all the reasons I've specified) and therefore didn't work hard enough to get better grades, that's "a lack of intelligence". wow. so I suppose you would be getting 1st in engineering if you're doing well in law? and physicists should ace PPE if they ace physics? this is your logic. you're essentially saying that because I do "badly" (it was based on an incredibly low work ethic) in *your* subject, I am bad at all subjects.

I am just saying people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And everyone gets 1sts in politics, mate. I'd be worried if you weren't.

Reply 77

Original post by Nameless Ghoul

And everyone gets 1sts in politics, mate.

*citation needed*
where's your proof?

Reply 78

username1148663

21

Original post by sleepysnooze

surely the crown estates should be owned by the state? the monarchy *was* the state when they "obtained" that land, but now there's a separation of concepts between state and monarchy - surely that land then should be given to the more legitimate entity (the elected one)? saying the monarchy generates more profits from the land in this sense is like saying "my thief is making me so much money for me by iving me pieces of the profit they make from selling my possessions" - the land should be the governments, yet they're grateful that the monarchy is giving them money which they ought to own to begin with.

You need to consult a legal professional and the deal was done hundreds of years after parliament became the top arbiter of power in the uk.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79