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

Should The British Monarchy Be Abolished?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 9/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 989 times Debate No: 80271
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




The Monarchy has been in Britain for many centuries. Is it time now for it to go?


I accept this challenge and will be primarily basing my views for this debate on the monarchy's positive effect on the British economy.
Debate Round No. 1


I first want to thank balacafa for debating this with me today.

He claims in his opening statement that the monarchy has a positive effect on the economy. I would like to know his reasoning for this as it is not a view I share. Overall the poeple of britain pay 35million per year to fund the queens wealth. This is money that could be spent on the economy, on helping refugees or on any number of things more useful than a rich womens lifestyle. We have many homeless people in our country, we have many children living in poverty yet its still acceptable to spend this sort of money pointlessly.


Just so it's clear I assumed that R1 was acceptance so that is why I didn't elaborate on that point.

Here is why the British monarchy should not be abolished ...


The royal family costs each UK citizen 66p yearly. The amount of tourism they bring in is immense. So for of cost of rougly £40M annually, the royal family brings in about £176M to the UK treasury. And that does not include the money made by restaurants, hotels, cabs and stores. I think that is what is considered to be a good investment.


The Royals make Britain unique in a world that has, for the most part, abandoned Royal lines in favour of democratic, federalist or communist government.

Charitable contriubtion

The charitable contribution of the Royals is undeniable. Their time and donations to charitable concerns has brought light to issues such as AIDS, Land-mines, and poverty - while encouraging other prominent citizens to follow their lead. Diana, Charles, William, Andrew and Edward have been Role Models.


Within Britain, the members of the royal family must remain unbiased in their political affiliations. They are Secular and should remain so, so as not to be pulled into political debate, elections, or to draw for and against opposition.

Other Monarchies are doing well

Any modern debate about monarchies inevitably revolves around the British royal family but Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Spain, the Netherlands and Japan, among others, all maintain their royal families, and most are immensely popular.

And those countries are clearly doing something right, as you’ll constantly find them near the top of development indices. The top four counties on the IDHI, one of the best methods of judging a country like a prize pig at the county fair, are all constitutional monarchies, and there are 11 in the top 20.

National Identitiy

We could argue about this issue all day, if we didn’t have better things to do. But when it comes down to it, the Royals are an integral part of Great Britain’s national identity. Britain without the royals would be like France without wine, or Russia without horrific human rights abuses. No wonder the majority of Brits believe they’re a key part of what it means to be British.

If the Royal Family went away, what else would the English be famous for? Bad food? A football league where only three teams are any good? Some third stereotype? No, the Royals give everyone something in common to be proud of (or complain and gossip about.)

Debate Round No. 2


Your first point is that the royal family brings in enormous amounts of revenue through tourism. I have no proof of this but I think that if we abolished the monarchy tourism might just increase as we could turn Buckingham palace or other ones of the queens mansions into a museum.
Also the queens mansions could be sold for a enormous price that may outsize any profit gained from tourism.

You then say that the royal family makes Britain unique but over 25 other countries still have monarchs. Thats not unique.

Your point about about the royal families charitable contributons is not one I will challenge.

There is no definite proof in your next point that the royal families are behind these countries (in your next points) success but there is a link between them.

You then move on to national Identity and as you rightfully point out we could discuss this all day but I am not proud of a country that has kids in poverty and people on the street that still spends nearly 40 million on a very rich women's lifestyle.

Although this is slightly irrevellant my final point is that you saying the premier league has only three good teams is wrong. Leicester city 4 da win!!!! Sorry about that it was off topic.


== R2 Rebuttals ==

I understand that Britain pays approximately £35 million on the monarchy but if you do the maths that is the equivalent 52p per person and therefore although the total addition of all that money may appear to be a lot it actually isn't if you do the maths. Secondly, I doubt that you will concede this point so I will reiterate my point in R2.

"the royal family brings in about £176M to the UK treasury."

That is huge compared to how much the Queen costs us. We receive over 400% of the amount that we pay to the Queen back to benefit our economy.

The rest of my opponent's R2 argument has already been refuted since this is the only point that they talk about in this round. Actually, the money that we make back from the Queen helps us to help refugees and homeless people more than if we removed the monarchy to attempt to save money.

== R3 Rebuttals ==

Actually you do have proof that the royal family brings in a huge amount of money via the statistics and the reliable sources that prove them to be true. My opponent has provided 2 solutions here so I will respond to both. My opponent has provided a solution a and b.

Solution A - We turn Buckingham Palace into a museum.

This is a ridiculous idea. Firstly, my opponent has failed to provide a statistic to show how expensive making it into a museum will be but I do not need a source to prove that it will be expensive. Where will this money come from? This theory cannot be considered without any details provided as to why and how this will actually work and make money. There are other museums. What will make this one unique?

Solution B - The Queen's mansions could be sold for an enormous price"

Whilst it is true that Buckingham palace can be sold for almost £1 billion you need to work out how much the Queen actually earns. Since we are rounding up the Price of Buckingham palace it is acceptable to round up the Queens annual revenue. If the Queen makes approximately £200 million annually then £1 billion will be met it only 5 years. In the short term £1 billion will appear to be great however it will be spent quickly and we would make much more in the long term. Considering that when the Queen eventually passes away she will have an heir.

I said that the royal family is unique because it is the only country to have a monarchy out of over 25 other countries.

My opponent has failed to provide rebuttals to many of my points and has only responded to the points that they appear to have chosen at random. There are spelling mistakes in my opponents argument.

Vote Con!


Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
I'll expand the RFD if requested.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
I'll probably accept this in 48 hours max. Hopefully under 24 hours.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Challenge me to the debate by typing my username in the challenge section and I'll accept in a few days if you want to debate this with me.
Posted by Combativedestroy 2 years ago
I do believe that the British Monarchy should continue for generations.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by MagicAintReal 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct tied and S&G tied, no major infractions. Pro had to prove that Britain should abolish the monarchy. Pro claimed the British people pay 35 million euros to the queen annually which was refuted successfully by Con pointing out, with maths, that it's only 66 pounds/brit/year, which in my American brain is like $100/year. Unfortunately, this is Pro's only authentic reason to abolish the monarchy, everything else from Pro reflects points that Con generated. Con's winning on the 176 million euro revenue brought in by the royal family and charitable donations. Pro does refute Con's point about uniqueness successfully, because Con actually provided many monarchies to bolster Con's points about monarchical success, and Pro pointed it out. But because Pro never successfully refutes the revenue/charity arguments, these effectively reject the resolution. Arguments to Con. Pro had no sources, while Con's were relevant, credible, and used effectively to reject the resolution. Source to Con.