The British monarchy should be abolished.
The idea of having a monarch has always been ludicrous and is even more so in the modern time. The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch.
Giving extra rights and privileges to a person based on the family in to which they were born is a stupid, archaic idea.
According to Article 1 of the United Nation's Universal Deceleration of Human Rights,
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood".
Monarchy runs contrary to this concept of being "equal in dignity and rights", because the Royal Family has more from birth.
Recently, Prince George has caused me great annoyance. I find the idea that a one year old baby who has not had any great achievements or made a large positive difference to lives should be more important than me. From birth, unless the republican movement becomes more popular, he has been guaranteed one day to hold the office of Head of State.
I call to your attention this BBC News article:
If you look closely at it, you shall notice that the BBC has reported that a baby is learning to walk. It is ridiculous that just because he has accomplished Being Born, his walking should be deemed 'Newsworthy'. How many babies can walk?
This is an introduction as to why the idea of Monarchy is ludicrous.
My follow up arguments shall come after my challenger makes a response.
Hi, I look forward to a good debate.
"The idea of having a monarch has always been ludicrous and is even more so in the modern time."
This is actually less true than it sounds. Throughout history there have been a lot more successful and stable empires than you will find democracies. Even the Athenian democracy, the one that started it all, was notoriously corrupt. 
Under the Persian Empire, slavery was illegal. In 1335, the king of Sweden banned slavery . Democracies like the Romans had slaves while the Persians existed . The United States had slaves until the civil war broke out .
"The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch."
The Queen of England isn't some kind of dictator. It's become more symbolic than anything. All laws go through Parliament and the Queen doesn't have the authority to set her own laws. Parliament has been superior to the monarch since King Charles II. After the "Glorious Revolution of 1688, the supremacy of parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority." 
The United States of America separated partly because they were not being given representation in Parliament. 
"Giving extra rights and privileges to a person based on the family in to which they were born is a stupid, archaic idea."
I would like pro to elaborate on this claim and explain what extra rights he is referring to. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens
"Monarchy runs contrary to this concept of being 'equal in dignity and rights', because the Royal Family has more from birth."
I'm wondering if Pro is also against inheritance. Using this logic, anybody that is born with more money than somebody else should have it all taken away because it goes against what the United Nations said. I'd also like Pro to elaborate on his claim that they have more from birth. What does the royal family have that an average citizen does not have access to? Are they given crashed UFOs as souvenirs? No wait, they probably get free food at restaurants, they don't? I'm now wondering what they get that they haven't earned.
Pro is probably now wondering how the family has earned anything. When King George III, yes the guy that lost the USA, went into a lot of debt, he made a deal with the Parliament. He handed over all of the profits from his land for a fixed salary. Parliament accepted the deal figuring that it would pay off in the long term. Every monarch since King George III has handed over the profits from the plot of land. The land still belongs to the royal family, it's just that the money is given to the Parliament. While it currently costs £40,000,000 per year to cater for the royal family, Parliament makes £200,000,000 per year off of the royal family. Subtracting the costs of the family from the profits, the British government gains £160,000,000 per off of this family. That's not even close to what the royal family actually makes for the government. Every year, people from all over the world (especially from USA) to see the castles, the guards, and all of the other cool monarchy things. The net gain from tourism results in an extra £7,000,000,000 is revenue. Don't think that people would be coming to see a crumbling unkept castle, nobody goes to France to see those. 
If you were donating £7.16B every year to the government, you would probably get preferential treatment too.
"I find the idea that a one year old baby who has not had any great achievements or made a large positive difference to lives should be more important than me. From birth"
Some people are more important than others. Get used to it. As long as your vote counts the same, and you have the opportunity to succeed in life, what else could you want? Pure equality is never possible unless you live in a pure communist society, which has never existed.
In conclusion, the monarchy should stay as it is because parliament makes a tonne of money from them, and it would be a waste of time because the monarch is limited to ceremonies and diplomatic stuff.
Just to note, even though it isn't directly relevant to the debate, I would like to pick up on your usage of "The Queen of England". The Queen concerned here is the Queen of the United Kingdom (to use her shorter name). There hasn't been a Queen of England since the 1st of May 1707. I'm Scottish, and would like to note that there is more to Britain than England.
Before I respond to your points, I would like to add another to the debate, which is that the Head of State is meant to represent the people of a country at home and overseas. Monarchy poses a problem to this. The Windsors are an upper-class, white family. How can this possibly be representative of British society, when people of British nationality now have all sorts of ethnic backgrounds? Are most people in Britain posh and wealthy? Short answer: no. The Windsor family is not by any means representative of British society.
In response to your point about how Republics had slaves in the past, I remind you that correlation doesn't imply causation. Please explain why the USA's being a Republic as opposed to a Monarchy meant it had slaves. I could say that 8 of the top 10 largest world economies are Republics, but that wouldn't be a valid argument because their not having a monarchy isn't the cause of it.
To pick up on the word "stable", let it be known that Monarchies do not unite and stabilise countries. In fact, the three most active separatist movements in Europe are in countries with monarchies: Scotland in the UK, Catalonia in Spain and Flanders in Belgium.
"The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch."
I am very aware that the Queen is not a dictator - the UK has a system of constitutional monarchy. However, constitutional monarchy doesn't take away from the fact that British people are subjects of the Queen and not citizens.
Ironically, even though the UK has a system of constitutional monarchy, there isn't actually a constitution. The Crown has strong powers called Royal Prerogative powers which the Queen may use as she pleases . It is that if she did something like refuse to give a bill Royal Assent then there would likely be a revolution, but then what is the point in giving her the power at all?
It is not just the Queen who may exercise Royal Prerogative powers: HM Government may use them on her behalf. This gives a whole load of powers to the Government which they may use without the approval of parliament.
"Using this logic, anybody that is born with more money than somebody else should have it all taken away because it goes against what the United Nations said".
No. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights states that all are born "equal in dignity and rights". Never does it mention wealth.
What the Royal Family has more from birth that most people don't is being at the front of the line of succession to the Throne. A normal person in the UK, no matter how rich or successful they are in life, may never be Head of State of the United Kingdom because that position is taken by a Royal.
"Pro is probably now wondering how the family has earned anything".
I know exactly how the Royal Family has obtained money. I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question.
I heavily object to your statement that the monarchy costs "40,000,000 per year to maintain. A report published by the campaign group Republic estimates that this figure is actually "299,400,000, roughly 9 times greater than the figure published by the Royal Household . The cost of round-the-clock security costs "102,000,000 , a bill picked up by the Metropolitan Police.
However, this is just an estimate by the Republic group. The public is actually unable to find out for sure because the Royals are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, resulting in the Monarchy being a very secretive institution which is very difficult to hold to account.
Prince William and Kate recently had their Kensington apartment refurbished at a cost of around "4,000,000 to the taxpayer . Surely, if they are trying to "represent British values", they could try and live in a more normal home. The average wage in the UK is "26,500 (almost 44,500 USD), so most people can't quite afford to live in such luxury. I think it is all very well having a nice official residence for the Head of State, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to support their entire family. Would the American people tolerate it if President Obama's cousin's son was given a lovely $6,000,000? I think not.
Even if the monarchy cost absolutely nothing, I would still not support it because the entire principle of it is wrong.
As to tourism, research shows that tourists come to Britain for the excellent museums, incredible natural scenery and good shopping opportunities, not because there is a Monarchy .
People from all over the world might come to London to see Buckingham Palace. They do not, however, go in and have a cup of tea and a chat with the Queen.
I'm glad that you mentioned France. Indeed, people don't go to France to see crumbling castles. That is because the residences of the French Royals have not been left to the wind since the revolution. The Louvre, the palace in which the French Royals lived, in 2012 saw 8,000,000 visitors through its doors . In stark contrast to this, Buckingham Palace saw a mere 413,000 visitors through its doors .
"Some people are more important than others. Get used to it. As long as your vote counts the same, and you have the opportunity to succeed in life, what else could you want?"
I fully accept that some people are more important than others. People like Nelson Mandela and Stephen Hawking certainly were/are, what with their important achievements and contributions to the world. I ask, what has this baby contributed to the world to make it important? Absolutely nothing, it has been born. I accept that people are more important than me, but only when they should be.
Moving on to the opportunity to succeed in life, I again repeat: this Baby is going to be the Head of State one day. Why should the thousands of other babies in this country one day not have that chance of success in life? Monarchy excludes ordinary people from having the chance to represent their country as Head of State, and this is wrong.
In conclusion, the monarchy should go because it is not representative of the British people, is allowed to be secretive and unaccountable to the British people, isn't so good for tourism as everybody believes and excludes all but a select few from having the opportunity to become Head of State.
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://republic.org.uk...
 - http://www.bbc.co.uk...
 - http://www.visitbritain.org...
 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
 - http://www.royalcollection.org.uk...
I apologize for that. I tried to avoid calling the entire UK "England" during this, but in the states she's known as the Queen of England. It slipped out.
I honestly think that the second the sweet little old lady is gone, the movement to get the monarchy gone will dramatically increase in size.
Let's get this debate going again.
"The Windsors are an upper-class, white family. How can this possibly be representative of British society, when people of British nationality now have all sorts of ethnic backgrounds? Are most people in Britain posh and wealthy? Short answer: no."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is safe to assume that were the monarchy displaced, the Prime Minister would become the new Head of State.
If this is true, then the whole posh white people think wouldn't end with monarchy. The current Prime Minister is David Cameron. His family is worth £30,000,000 ($50,000,000). He's not exactly worried about his next electricity bill. Also, he's white.
"In response to your point about how Republics had slaves in the past, I remind you that correlation doesn't imply causation."
I wasn't trying to say that correlation equals causation, I'm quite surprised it was taken that way. My point was that there have been good monarchies, and bad republics. I'd rather live in a monarchy with a benevolent ruler than a republic with immoral values.
"To pick up on the word 'stable', let it be known that Monarchies do not unite and stabilise countries."
North Korea has a dictator, and it's actually becoming more stable. . Regarding where pro mentioned that monarchies do not unite, I'd like it to be noticed that a strong leader can definitely unify a nation.
"In fact, the three most active separatist movements in Europe are in countries with monarchies: Scotland in the UK, Catalonia in Spain and Flanders in Belgium."
A source here would be absolutely lovely.
"The Crown has strong powers called Royal Prerogative powers which the Queen may use as she pleases."
Getting rid of an entire system because of the theoretical powers the queen has is a waste of time. I'm sure that Parliament has more important things to be doing. Frankly, the Queen has been much more sparing with her ability to declare war than the Prime Minister's have been. When the UK entered Iraq in 2003, that was from a declaration of war by the PM, not her majesty. The only real problem I see with Royal Prerogative is the crown immunity . The monarch should be accountable for their actions. I still don't believe that the entire position should be eradicated for that one reason though. Maybe the powers should be slightly more limited is all.
"No. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights states that all are born 'equal in dignity and rights'".
I shall revisit this with a new argument. The children of all world leaders are born with more rights than other children. If the UN isn't going to care about Sasha and Malia Obama having the ability to go a fancy private school on taxpayer money, they shouldn't care about what the leaders of the UK do.
"I know exactly how the Royal Family has obtained money. I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question."
Definition of "earn": To bring about or cause deservedly 
Earn doesn't necessarily relate to money. I was referring to how they've earned what they have. I was not referring to how they obtained money. Also, even if that was my point, Pro failed to tell me how the obtained money even after stating "I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question."
Time out: I like to debate things outside of my realm of complete understanding because research is a great way to learn.
The population of the United Kingdom is 64.3 Million people according to the government's website. £299,400,000/64,300,000= £4.65. 4 and a half pounds is pretty negligible given that in 2009 some places in the UK were paying as much as an average of £10,500 in taxes per person. . Even if it does cost the average taxpayer to house the crown, it's not really that much.
"Prince William and Kate recently had their Kensington apartment refurbished at a cost of around "4,000,000 to the taxpayer."
I honestly have nothing to say about that. That's pretty messed up. As I said before, maybe higher restrictions are a better alternative than complete abolition.
"Would the American people tolerate it if President Obama's cousin's son was given a lovely $6,000,000? I think not."
Obama could personally fly to Nigeria to fight the Ebola outbreak and would still be criticized about it. I understand your point but he's a bad example.
"The Louvre, the palace in which the French Royals lived, in 2012 saw 8,000,000 visitors through its doors."
That may be true, but the Louvre is not used as a palace anymore. It is a museum that houses some fantastic pieces of art. Also, France is the most visited country in the world . It's only fitting that the Louvre would be so much more popular than Buckingham Palace.
"What has this baby contributed to the world to make it important? Absolutely nothing, it has been born."
Well what have you contributed to the world aside from being born? The two men you named: Hawking and Mandela have been extremely influential. Get out there, make a name for yourself. Become rich and famous. There are many countries with worse economic mobility than in Scotland.
"This Baby is going to be the Head of State one day. Why should the thousands of other babies in this country one day not have that chance of success in life?"
Well you always have the possibility of becoming the Prime Minister. At this point the crown does nothing more than ceremonial things, and the PM seems to be the de facto head of state.
In conclusion, the monarchy should stay but face tighter restrictions. Also, I do not believe that Pro refuted my point that there have been good monarchies and bad republics. Finally, I think that Parliament has more important things to be doing than worry that the 88 year old lady will try to take back absolute control.
"the Prime Minister would become the new Head of State."
A strong leader need not be Royal.
"The Queen's replacement would likely be a citizen elected by the people, accountable to the people, serving for a fixed term (the arrangements would be debated in Parliament)."
That would require a lot of planning though. A lot of laws would have to be altered in order to get this done, and many new laws would have to be set in place. There would be a lot of controversy over how long terms would be and how the voting would work. Would it be by popular vote? Probably not. I say this because the people in England would have much more influence than the people of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland . It simply would not be fair. An Electoral College system like the one that exists in the USA is a pretty bad idea too.
"The King of Sweden may have abolished slavery, but has Queen Elizabeth II?"
Haha I don't think she was ever given the chance to. She could re-instate slavery, and then abolish it. But she'd get a lot of bad press for it.
"You shall find a link to an article on European Separatist Movements at
When I went to the page it stated that "This article has multiple issues.
-This article needs additional citations for verification.
-This article is incomplete."
I'm not sure how reliable it is due to that message.
"The Monarchy makes the British Prime Minister much more powerful than he should be."
Just because the monarch is gone does not mean the PM will lose this power. David Cameron is not going to want his power limited. Neither will any other PM in power. To go along with this, the party in power will not want their power of acting on behalf of the Queen to disappear. This means that they'll find some way to keep the power in the hands of the government, possibly by a vote in parliament.
"How do you propose that the Monarch is held to account?"
The monarch could be held accountable by abolishing crown immunity.
In the USA, the President is impeached by the House of Representatives, and convicted/found innocent by the Senate .
According to Google, impeach means something completely different in the UK. I will clarify which definition I'm using.
Impeach: charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct.
A system like this where the House of Lords impeaches while the House of Commons can find the monarch guilty or innocent is something to consider. It wouldn't even have to involve the House of Lords, as to my understanding they are not elected by the people.
A new monarch would be put in place, but it would make each one think twice before doing something that could get them out of office.
"Mandela got to be South Africa's Head of State. Why shouldn't Hawking be Britain's"
I'd be in total support of that. Hawking for King 2014!
In all seriousness though, while it is unfair, life isn't fair. Everyone should be able to have the ability to be whatever they want to be, but that's just not the case.
"She holds this position based on who her parents were, and I believe that deciding who holds the highest office in a country based on that is unacceptable."
I can understand why one would feel that way, but is it really worth changing a large part of the culture of the UK just to appease some people who don't think it's fair? The UK has always had monarchs, why change that now? Why would people have felt it acceptable 200 years ago, but not now? The Queen is an identity for the country. People look at her and think "that's the Queen of the UK!" I doubt many foreigners recognize David Cameron, or even an elected Chancellor/President of most foreign nations. People would definitely recognize the first elected head of state of the UK, but after that, not so much.
In conclusion, the British Monarchy should not be abolished because of the amount of time and effort necessary to complete a restructuring of thr government. Also, there is a long-lasting culture associated with monarchial system. Next, getting rid of the monarchy would not get rid of the monarchial powers. Somebody in the government would find a way to keep them in the government. Fourth, it would be much simpler to impose new restrictions on the monarch, such as eliminating crown immunity. I understand that members of parliament have to pledge their allegiance to the Queen, but an asterisk could be added to that. Finally, just because some people are born with special rights does not mean they should be taken away. If Pro was born into the royal family, he wouldn't be so eager to end the monarchial system.
Thanks for a thought provoking debate. I wish my opponent luck during voting, and all future debates.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|