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

The United Kingdom should keep it's 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: 7/15/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 59002
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Con can just do acceptance or the first argument. I don't really mind.

Also, I'd prefer it if con was British too, but again, it doesn't matter.


*Sips tea*
Bonjour, je m'appelle Sigma. J'habite dans France!
Ha, just kidding. Hiya I am British too, south of London! I guess I am a Conman too.
Oh, how fitting!
I accept your challenge. May the best Brit win!

(I am genuinely a Brit. I just like to have a joke!)
Debate Round No. 1


May the best Brit win indeed.

There is only a small minority of the UK's population that want the monarchy out. It is because the monarchy is part of the national heritage of the United Kingdom. If we changed the monarch as a head of state, we would be making the UK less recognisable in the world. For example, I would be very impressed if you knew who Michael D. Higgins was. Although he sounds like an author, he is the president of the Republic of Ireland.

Also, an advantage of having one of the last monarchies in the world means that many tourists will travel here to find out about our monarchy. American tourists visit British icons such as Buckingham Palace that are run by the monarchy. Due to a deal with parliament that George III did, the monarchy surrender the profits from their land to the parliament. This way, parliament will always have a steady flow of money from overseas.

You may argue that the monarchy costs lots to maintain. It costs £40 million to maintain the royal family. However, as I have mentioned earlier, the Royal Family send their profits to parliament, which is normally about £200 million. Sure, the tourism money is massive compared to the money mentioned here, but the profits that the UK get from the Royal Family can give about £2.60 to every British man, woman and child.

With a British presidency, we would have a head of state that would only stay in for around 5 years, and he could do whatever he wanted to in that time. George Bush of the United States of America was elected president, and he stayed in office for 8 years. During this time, he managed to kill thousands of his soldiers over a false piece of information about Iraq, while saying about education "Childrens do learn". (This is an actual quote). There is always a risk that a president could end up making as much gaffes as George Bush during his presidency. But with a monarch in place, who can hold an election for a new PM at any time she pleases, politicians are kept in check, keeping the best PM possible to run the country with the queen watching.

Lastly, the monarchy has provided stability for the United Kingdom. For the past 300 years, Britain has been without any coups, revolutions or civil wars, and we have survived 2 wars in Europe, Islamic fundamentalism and the Troubles in Northern Ireland due to the national pride and spirit created by the monarchy.


To start, I just want to say that I believe the idea of Monarchy is a imbecilic, futile and overrated. It is the epitome of inequality.
The monarchy is the line of reign a group of royalty have. The monarchs have NO power in Britain. Yes, they do technically pass laws, but a law has NEVER been denied by a King or a Queen of this age! They are figureheads. And figureheads get worn and people eventually stop caring about them. What really counts is the body, or the parliament in this case (Go UKIP!).

Monarchs are born into their reign. From birth, they are automatically rich and have the ability to purchase anything to their desire. As a teen Brit, I think that is downright outrageous! Why should someone born to a specific family get more advantages than working families like mine?

See where I am going? How is the above any different to Sexism? Racism? All forms of inequality? You can not deny that the new Prince George has done NOTHING to earn his multimillion funds that he will undoubtedly claim in the future. This is why Britain should banish the Royalty; they serve our country no justice.
Debate Round No. 2


Monarchs do have power in the UK, not only do they pass laws, they can seize their lands, meaning parliament will have no land or profit. The queen simply doesn't want too much power, which keeps her reign a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute monarchy. And opinion polls of the monarchy have never showed that the British population is against the monarchy, so it is unlikely that they will stop caring about them.

Don't forget if a Prime Minister tries to take away all powers from the Royal Family, the ruling monarch is can have him arrested for high treason. They are a lot more powerful than people seem to think.

As for your injustice point, being a monarch is a job that involves specific attributes, just like any job. The skills required for the monarchy (keeping national pride, stopping the bad PM's, etc.) are easily passed down from father to son. We all have knowledge that we can thank our parents for. Also, with that logic, how come people can earn millions just because they can sing well, or they can kick a football around easily. Some jobs are simply worth more than others.

Also, the reason that the monarchy isn't similar to sexism and racism is that the monarchy doesn't discriminate against anyone.

I have already mentioned that the other alternative to a monarch is a president, and a president would come with a republic. A man by the name of Oliver Cromwell has already tried to make a republic in Great Britain when he refused the limited powers that comes with being king. The republic lost support after 3 years. A king has limited powers set to him by parliament, whereas a president has unlimited powers. In the book 1984 by George Orwell, the UK is a republic, and I think we all know what the world, not just the UK, is like in that book.

What is the point of risking that, or a leader that only really cares for the people that agree with him? That is why I support the monarchy.


TheSIgmaGamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I'm guessing that you are on holiday, or for whatever reason you were not able to make your argument in time. I don't mind.

A lot of my friends (and acquaintances) who are American seem to think that the monarchy have a kind of entertainment value. Americans think that celebrities are the ultimate entertainment, and the Royal Family is full of ultimate celebrities. I don't mean 'funny' entertainment (I do though, see right), what I do mean is that when something happens that involves the Royal Family, the media will then report on that (how many times have you seen William and Kate?), rather than the usual nonsense about the relationships of sportsmen, or the current criminal status of pop stars.

Monarchies are not out of date. When I talk about the subject with other people, they will always tell me this. Tell me then, why 43 countries still have a monarch as head of state? On the Human Development list, the United States ranks third, below two constitutional monarchies (Norway and Australia). In the top 20 on that list, nine are constitutional monarchies. On the IDHI (which ranks governments) the United States ranks 16th, behind 7 monarchies (Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, Canada and Belgium). Monarchies, as a type of government, are certainly not out of date, unless corruption and absolute power is the new, modern thing.

The republican movement that wants the monarchy out in the UK is a minority. It is about as popular as the group of people who believe that the US should leave the United Nations. I can guarantee you that the British people will never want the monarchy out, and while it is still in place, that will never change.


TheSIgmaGamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheist-Independent 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture in the final rounds by con. Pro brought a compelling argument and backed it up with evidence, however did not provide sources to back up his/her claim.