The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Canada should move to abolish the monarchy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,274 times Debate No: 67787
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




I will be arguing favorably to the notion that the functions of head of state of Canada should be granted to a Canadian citizen, and that the British royal family should stop being considered Canadian monarchs.

Round 1. Acceptance only
Round 2. Arguments
Round 3. Counter Arguments
Round 4. Closing Arguments


I accept this debate!
I propose that we refer to the royal family by this definition: 'The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.'
I assume that when you say 'the functions of head of state of Canada should be granted to a Canadian citizen', you are not suggesting another monarchy or hereditary role, but an elected one?
As you are moving against the status quo I expect you to carry the Burden of Proof.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con, in this case, @monethys, for joining me on this interesting debate. Looking forward to his response.

I will try to elucidate my point of view in the following points:


A recent poll by Strategic Council demonstrated that only 30% of canadians feel a connection to the Queen or the Governor General. Furthermore, the poll indicated that 65% think that 'ties with the monarchy should be cut once the Queen passes away' [1]. Another study by Your Canada, indicates that 55% of canadians believe the Head of State should be elected and believes it is time to discontinue the Royal Family's hold on canadian duties. [2] My point here is that the majority of canadians think the system should be changed, and expressed the fact that they do not share any ties with the british royal family so why are foreigners considered de jure Head of State of Canada?


Moreover, canadians pay an exorbitant amount of money of their taxes to the Royal family and their representatives, the Governor General and the 11 Lieutenant-Governors. Currently valued at more than $50 million, per year which, per capita, is more than what the british pay, ($1.57 compared to $1.32) [3]. Money that could easily be reinvested towards more important matters such as healthcare or education. And that cost keeps rising. Amid the fact that they serve no duties that a fully elected official could not do.


Under the current political system, no canadian, no matter how skilled and talented, may ever aspire to become head of state of their country. That profession is by birthright reserved to a foreigner that has no connection or affiliation with the canadian people. This is particulary odd; Canada must show that we're able to govern ourselves. Although symbolic, this function still has a particular meaning. And ought to be given to a canadian national to fully demonstrate that Canada is no longer a colony of the British Empire. We must adopt a system that rewards one's merit rather than one's luck at birth, specially when it comes to the highest ranking position in the nation.

We must follow in the footsteps of South Africa, India, and the other 18 nations that have decided to be fully independant. Canada loses $50 million per year and unlike the Brits, we get no profit from tourism or the Crown Estate. Why do we hold on to this outdated system?




Thanks, Pro.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the II reigns over some of the most prosperous and egalitarian democracies throughout the world. Throughout this debate I will not only negate my opponents contentions, as is required to win, but I will also outline how the present constitutional monarchy is substantially and demonstrably preferable to a Presidential-style head of state, in all manner of ways.
Monarchies, by some margin, tend to be the wealthiest, prosperous and most egalitarian nations on the Earth. Twelve of the top 20 wealthiest countries by the highest GDP per Capita are monarchies[1]. This relationship exists for a number of reasons:
  • Political Stability: “Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?” - Peter Hitchens. A constitutional monarchy promotes political stability well-supported claim than can be back up historically, statistically and logically. Seven of the top 10 and eleven of the top 20 countries ranked in order of least corruption are monarchies[2] and of the seven oldest continuous democracies, five are constitutional monarchies. Democracy is not a perfect panacea, as is increasing becoming conventional opinion, and holds numerous flaws that can be and are rectified by constitutional monarchies all over the world. One such flaw is it's rather concerning short-sightedness; as democracy relies on intelligent voters who can discern fact from fiction, when these voters are bombarded with countless unverifiable facts and stories each day by the media, it is apparent that the man with power over the media controls public perception, and thus controls the voters. This is not to say that democracy is useless, but instead to recognise that balance is required. For example, consider Warren Harding, Adolf Hitler, Ayatollah Khomeini, Fidel Castro, Idi Amin, Muammar Qaddafi, and Saddam Hussein all of whom have been popularly chosen or otherwise came to power in democratic republics.

  • Cost: “For the price of a cup of coffee, Canadians can enjoy the stability of the Crown.” - Robert Finch. It is commonly argued that the monarchy is extravagant and wasteful, and I'd like to dispel this odd myth that this wastefulness is unique to monarchies. In fact, the cost of Presences are often much higher. The cost for the security of the President frequently reaches over $150 million per annum, which is almost twice that of the entire of the monarch. In 1997 total Executive Office of the President and funds appropriated to the President reached a whopping $310,441,000. Not to mention the pontential cost of the changeover, which was, for Austrailia, estimated at 2.5 billion AUD[4].

I have demonstrated that, in general, monarchy is more cost effective and offers greater political stability. There's a saying that applies perfectly to republicanism within Canada, which is: don't fix what isn't broken!






Sorry that this was quite brief, I've been short of time, but nonetheless I shall be looking forward to the next rounds where I hope to have a crack at Pro's arguments! Over to you, Pro.

Debate Round No. 2


Thank you, Con. And I truly hope both the voters and Con are enjoying this debate as much as I am.

Con provides us with an interesting argument that is, that Monarchies 'tend to be the wealthiest, prosperous and most egalitarians nations on the Earth'. I would like to remind both Con and the voters that : Correlation does not equate causation.Meaning that, simply because, countries, that just happen to be monarchies, top the list of highest GDP per capita, that monarchy automatically leads to wealth. Nothing proves that monarchy causes wealth. Moreover, following Con's logic, Republics are still superior : In the 'Most liveable cities in the World' 7 out of the 10 cities are Republics [1], in the Global Innovation Index, Index that calculates innovation and patent output, 8 out of the 10 countries are still Republics [2] also, all the countries in the Top 20 highest literacy rate, are Republics. [3] Furthermore, 10 out of the 10 countries with the lowest suicide rate in the World are Republics. [4] There are alot more lists that are topped by Republics, thus I believe to have made my point clear.

Concerning Con's argument that Monarchy provides some sort of 'Political stability', this is arguable. How does the British Royal Family provide political stability to the Canadian people? And is it worth $50 million per year? Con argues that one of democracy's main flaw is the fact that democracy 'relies on intelligent voters, who can discern fact from fiction' he then continues by saying 'when these voters are bombarded with countless unverifiable facts' I would like to remind Con that the United Kingdom is a Constitutional monarchy, meaning that the Head of is elected by the people through election campaigns, similar to Presidents in a Republic. So one could argue that the British people are 'bombarded with countless unverifiable facts' as well. Con also tries to discredit democracy by naming bad leaders such as Qaddafi, Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein. Even though they came to power via Coup d'Etat's, which is a suspension of democratic rights, by force, I could very well do the same with monarchies and name Saudi Arabia , Brunei and Qatar as examples of terribles forms of oppresive monarchies.

'The cost of the security of the President frequently reaches over $150 million per annum'' Before addressing this remark I'd like to see a credible source to support it. But even if that was true, added the security detail, and the frequent visits, the real cost of the british monarchy rises to an incredible $307 million per year [5]

Lastly, it goes without saying that some presidencies cost a staggering amount. But the same also applies to monarchies. As I have demonstrated before, the british monarchy, for instance, has a cost of 307 million per annum. I could also give more examples like the House of Saud, who believe the entire ressources of Saudi Arabia as their property and thus frequently give themselves cash handouts. Currently the entire royal family is estimated at an astonishing $1.4 trillion [6].

I will now conclude my round as I believe to have covered all arguments that Con has put forward.
Canadians must reserve the rights and duties of head of state to a canadian citizen with no allegiance to a foreign power. Con has tried to dissuade us by showing that Queen Elizabeth II offers "political stability" to canadians. This is erroneous and unfounded. Canada simply does not need a foreign royal family to assure political stability for its citizens.

My sources :

[3] & [4];


monethys forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Following Con's sudden forfeiture, I will now post my conclusion.

I believe, and so does the majority of Canadians, as demonstrated earlier, that it is time to opt for a system that values merit and ability over bloodline. Particularly when it comes to the most important position in the country. Notwithstanding the fact that Canadians profit in no ways of Queen Elizabeth II as our head of state, we even lose $50 million per annum, and that cost has proved to be increasing rapidly. I invite the voters to vote Pro because I have elucidated all notions that Con has put forward. Having a Canadian head of state increases our independence and autonomy, while demonstrating that we have overcome our old colonial days. Con has failed to clearly demonstrate why we should maintain a foreign, distant Queen as, de jure, head of state of all Canadians, and I ask the voters to vote subsequently.

I would like to thank Con, @monethys, for agreeing to debate this interesting topic with me, I would also like to thank the voters for taking part of this debate.


monethys forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 2 years ago
Didn't know about the tax... as a Brit, I say long live the monarchy! Though somehow my income doesn't seem to account very well for a hand in tax... wonder what happens to all this money.
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 2 years ago
A good monarchy is waayy better than George Bush.
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
Eh, it's gonna be quite tough defending what you don't believe in but if you're up for it, let's get started :)
Posted by rikomalpense 2 years ago
Damn, I was hoping you'd be on the Con side. Well, I'll probably still take this up if nobody who actually believes in Con does.

Also @Rubikx while in practice they have no actual power, they technically still have power, that they technically could wield over us in some small things. The Queen's not likely to do it, but who knows with Charles.
Posted by maydaykiller 2 years ago
Because a fraction of our tax money goes to them and their representatives, while they have no actual power, they take money from tax payers that could be used for better purposes.
Posted by Rubikx 2 years ago
British monarchs have almost no actual power in Canada. They are figure heads. I see know reason why we can't celebrate them as our king, queen, prince, princess or other royalty come visit our country.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture