The Instigator
TheImpossibleGirl
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Philocat
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Britain should not have a Royal Family.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Philocat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2015 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 643 times Debate No: 72642
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

TheImpossibleGirl

Pro

As a British resident myself, I believe that the British royal family is a waste of time, money and publicity.

My first reason, is that the British Royal family brings shame and unwanted attention to Britain.
In July 2012, on a holiday to Los Vegas, Prince Harry was photographed naked, during a round of strip poker. After being questioned about this photos, Prince Harry refused to comment, showing his lack of respect for the country. This cast unwanted and unnecessary attention onto Britain.
However, this is not the only instances of Prince Harry thoughtless actions. In 2005, at a fancy dress party, the future king's brother wore an arm band with a nazi swastika imprinted on it. This repulsive action again portrayed Britain in a negative light.

Source:
http://m.usmagazine.com......
Philocat

Con

I am also a British person, so it will be good to discuss this from an even perspective :)

There are multiple reasons why Britain should keep the monarchy:

Constitution

The United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy, which means that the Queen is the head is state. She also has the ability to dissolve parliament or prevent legislation, so if the British government were to become corrupt then the British public could appeal to the Queen (who is politically neutral) to dissolve parliament, prevent corrupt legislation, and prevent the further corruption of the government. She then can call a general election to select a fresh government.

It is also important that the head of state is essentially politically neutral, as otherwise he/she would have their role influenced by political allegiances, party ideologies and parliamentary bickering.

Therefore the UK should keep the monarchy as a safeguard against the corruption of government and to ensure we have a politically neutral head of state.

Economic reasons

The royal family is also good in a monetary sense: it raises millions for charity and brings in tons of tourism revenue.

Culture

The monarchy gives Britain a sense of culture and national identity. When people think of Britain, they tend to think of the Royal family. If we lost the monarchy we would lose part of our national identity.

Also, the idea of a family as the head of state supports the ideal of family life.

Response to my opponent

My opponent brings up the scandals caused by Prince Harry's shenanigans, and how they cast Britain in a bad light.

Yet this is not a problem exclusive to monarchies, politicians often have scandals. For example, the family of US President Kennedy have had numerous scandals over the years.

To summarise, even if we abolished the monarchy, this would not prevent scandals from happening.

Furthermore, these scandals do not seem to mitigate the international view of the royal family. 61% of Americans approve of the Queen and 71% think that the monarchy is good for Britain.
Debate Round No. 1
TheImpossibleGirl

Pro

Although the royal family may create income through tourism, this does not benefit the tax payers who are yearly paying for the royal family.
Also, the royal family themselves are not appealing to tourists, it is the history and architecture of buildings, such as Buckingham Palace, that are encouraging tourists.

I agree that the Royal Family are a symbol of Britain, however, are they British themselves?
The answer to this, is no. In fact, the BRITISH Royal Family are actually of German heritage.
Another symbol of Britain is democracy, the will to vote and choose who rules the country. However, the royal family strongly goes against this. We, as the people of Britain did not choose forward royal family, we were just given one.

I admit, in the past, monarch's and the royal family have been of great use, although today, are they really necessary?

Source:

http://oliverjamesopinion.com...
Philocat

Con

Sorry for the delay, I've been rather busy the last two days :)

'Although the royal family may create income through tourism, this does not benefit the tax payers who are yearly paying for the royal family.'

The monarchy costs just 56p per taxpayer per year (1); which is hardly enough to warrant removal of the monarchy.
Furthermore, the income from tourism goes into local businesses which improves the economy as a whole, which will reduce taxes as well as austerity measures. So in a roundabout way, the British people actually benefit financially.

'Also, the royal family themselves are not appealing to tourists, it is the history and architecture of buildings, such as Buckingham Palace, that are encouraging tourists.'

Yet these attractions would be gradually transformed for modern, business use over time if the monarchy was to be abolished; eventually they would lose their cultural value. Besides, it isn't just the history/architecture that people come to see. One of the most popular tourist attractions is watching the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. This is a tradition that would cease to be if the monarchy was to be removed.

'I agree that the Royal Family are a symbol of Britain, however, are they British themselves?
The answer to this, is no. In fact, the BRITISH Royal Family are actually of German heritage.'

All British people have European heritage to some extent or another. The Celts were originally from central Europe before they came to Britain, the Romans were Italian, the Anglo-Saxons were German, The Vikings were Scandinavian, the Normans were French, the Plantagenets were French, the Georgians were German and so on...
With your logic, nobody is actually British.
Yet it is generally accepted that after a certain amount of time of living within Britain, a family is considered to be British. The reason that our current Royal Family is of German heritage is because King George I was German, yet that was near 300 years ago!

'Another symbol of Britain is democracy, the will to vote and choose who rules the country. However, the royal family strongly goes against this.'

It doesn't! We vote for members of parliament and a Prime Minister who rules the country. The monarchy does not rule the country!

'I admit, in the past, monarch's and the royal family have been of great use, although today, are they really necessary?'

I wouldn't say they are 'necessary', but they are a integral part of British heritage and I maintain that Britain would be a culturally poorer country if we were to lose the Royal family.


Debate Round No. 2
TheImpossibleGirl

Pro

TheImpossibleGirl forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

I extend all my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
TheImpossibleGirl

Pro

TheImpossibleGirl forfeited this round.
Philocat

Con

Vote Con :)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by IndianaFrank 1 year ago
IndianaFrank
I see your point however, let me assure you, your country would never have a shortage of people who do things to embarrass your county... We all face that problem.
Posted by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
Oops, I forgot to post my source for the last bit:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Theunkown 1 year ago
Theunkown
TheImpossibleGirlPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
TheImpossibleGirlPhilocatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF. Con's points on upholding British culture and tradition strengthened their arguments further, as culture and tradition need to be upheld. Economically, the charity point of Con's strengthen Con's victory. Con demonstrated successfully how Britain should have a royal family.