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

Everyone knows it's an easy degree for not-so-smart people.

so you have no proof nice one - nailed it

Well, someone who barely scraped a 2:2 for law went to politics and got successive firsts. I am not sure; that's not proof at all?

I like this video.

[video="youtube;bhyYgnhhKFw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw[/video]

why would I need a legal professional to understand that the monarchy's land should be the state's land when the monarchy got that land via the state? seems very simple to understand to me...

You would need a legal professional because you make statements like that.

You didn't even know it existed until I said and you probably still haven't googled it to try and learn some basics.


Posted from TSR Mobile

nope, I didn't think you were interpreting the royal grant in a way which is basically too broad to be valid when you consider where they even got that land from in the first place (the state) - I didn't think you were being *quite* so opportunistic. when I said "it costs *something*" I meant "there is a cost imposed upon the state in the loss of revenues and a cost to the tax payer regarding that overall loss" which you didn't recognise just like I didn't recognise that the monarchy should own the lands which generate those revenues

The state derives from the queen not the other way around.

You really need to learn some stuff


Posted from TSR Mobile

1) how? explain, because I disagree. you need a structure of organised violence and *then* a specific leader behind that violence. the violence precedes the leader. the leader =/= the violence. anybody can use violence. violence is the necessary element of statehood, not "being a king/queen". the king/queen therefore isn't special. the fact that a king happened to utilise a state to achieve their goals doesn't make the state something defined by its monarchy. to say that the state *needs* a monarchy is something, therefore, that I disagree with.
2) me taking a different opinion isn't me needing to "learn some stuff". seriously. I wish it was that easy to argue but it takes more work than just that I'm afraid.

You just don't get it these aren't opinions they are laws.

Changing those laws also violates fundamental principals of British law such as ownership.

This isn't a debate it's fact


Posted from TSR Mobile

oh wow, so I guess if something is law then I guess I can't argue whether it's right or wrong(!) shucks! the legal status of the monarchy's ownership of essentially stolen property is a barrier to my ability to criticise it! aw man. I guess the reason why the americans made slavery, as a matter of property ownership, illegal, is just down to "magic" and "legal professionals" using such sorcery to break down these barriers to thought

Laws can be changed but you understand nothing in anything that we have spoken about that much is clear to anyone objective reading.


Posted from TSR Mobile

...what? so why were you telling me "this is the law." just a moment ago when you're now tossing its relevance out? I've understood that the monarchy gets a grant get pays some of the revenue to the state, I simply took issue with this arrangement given the morality of the monarchy being able to own said land in the first place. I've never not got that - I simply questioned the angle that you were coming from because of how I didn't think you'd have appealed to it when it's so easy to refute - the monarchy doesn't deserve land. it doesn't really deserve anything really apart from human rights for its incumbents of course, but all of its land is basically the result of inhumane acts in the past that are more than likely to have a large body of proof regarding its occurrence. I know they're not active dictators now, but so what? should ferdinand marcos (philippines) have been allowed to run off with billions of gold he got from the government after he got kicked out of power (from his dictatorial position)? surely that gold should go back to the government, right?

so you don't account for enjoyment at all? do you think I'd do well in a subject that I hated in the same way I'd do well in a subject I enjoyed? if this was true, why wouldn't everybody just do medicine?
+still got no proof then?

I'm against the Royal Family because they're a pointless ornament.

They're a passover from a colonial past. How is that a pretty or redeeming thing to be proud of

They're the symbolic left-over of Britain's criminal past, and England's stolen wealth from around the world.

It's also completely contradictory to our current, apparent way of thinking in terms of equality or all-things-being-equal when you have a rich criminal family placed on a pedestal, with prince's still being born in to this inherited wealth and inherently praised for being a part of it, by chance...

It's completely bizarre. We're in 2013.

We shouldn't have a royal family. We're supposed to be a conscious, progressive, modern, fairly ethical country. Promoting the idea of inherited wealth and automatic praise on a national... international scale goes completely against that concept. It's a farce and we shouldn't support the idea of praising these people who've been born in to this situation as if they've achieved something.