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

The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,233 times Debate No: 15609
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




The title is self explanatory. I will be arguing that the monarchy is a burden to the UK and that the monarchy should be abolished and 99% of its wealth should be given to the treasury.


The monarchy is a waste of taxpayers money.
in 2008 the royal family cost the British taxpayers £40 000 000. this money is spent on things such as official overseas trips and palace maintenance. Why should this money be given to them when it could be given to support our troops or fund our hospitals?{Source}

If the monarchy were to be abolished the treasury would be given vast amounts of money.

If the monarchy were to be abolished and 99% of its wealth was given to the treasury it would receive £346 500 000 this money could be given to the ministry of defense or to our schools and hospitals instead of being in the possession of undeserving people.

The monarchy has no place in modern British society.
according to wikipedia "A monarchy is a form of government in which all political power is passed down to an individual (usually hereditary) known as a monarch ("single ruler"), or king (male), queen (female)."

Years ago
the monarchy was the dominant power in Britain. declaring wars, deciding on foreign affairs, running the country. nowadays all this stuff is handled by the British government and the monarchy no longer has a place in Britain anymore.

I am done researching for the night so I will give my opponent some time for his or hers rebuttal and resume debating tomorrow if an opponent has accepted by then.



Actually the monarchy costs the taxpayer nothing, as all income from the Crown Estates is donated to the treasury ( (, which last year totalled �256million ( That means the taxpayer is actually gaining �216million each year. Then there is income generated from the royals income tax, which is in the millions ( Royal events such as weddings and funerals also generated income for the people ( ( ( (, we can see from television figures that Royal events are popular here and worldwide, with Diana's funeral and the Queen Mothers funeral being among the most watched events ever.(, which gives a scale of how much money can be generated from their events. Then there is the flood of tourists who come here on the back of it still being a monarchy, which provides an invaluable boost to local and national business' ( You wouldn't get that from the election or marriage of a non royal.

I don't know why my opponent assumes that if the monarchy was abolished their wealth would go to the treasury, not only is that illegal ( but it isn't as beneficial as he may think. The Queen isn't even in the top 12 richest in the UK (, in fact she isn't even the richest monarch in the world, not even in the top 10 ( Most of the monarchy's wealth is in their assets, which totals �6.6billion (, so even if the treasury confiscated their wealth they would have to find buyers for those assets before any income was generated. It would make more sense to confiscate the wealth of Lakshmi Mittal, whose fortune is that of 10 monarchs. My opponent also does not realise that a lump sum injection into the treasury does not result in new projects. Economies are based on income, and credit ratings ( If the UK were to use the monarchs wealth to build new hospitals, it would then be lumbered with the cost of their upkeep, costing the taxpayer more. As I pointed out in the first paragraph, it is far more beneficial to have the steady and vast income generated from the monarchy, which if abolished would simply go into their own pockets and not to our treasury.

The argument that they have no place in British society is an odd one. In 2000 years, only 10 have been without a monarch (, and that isn't even getting into the debate of whether Cromwell was King in all but name. Does my opponent think our rights, legals systems and traditions developed separate to the culture that has always had a monarch? British society is a constitutional monarchy, without the monarchy there would be no Britain, only England, Cymru and Alba ( If British society is a constitutional monarchy, then how can the monarchy have no place in that same society? In the surveys undertaken over the last 15 years an overwhelming amount support the monarchy ( ( British society obviously, not only wants the monarchy, but likes the monarchy. In fact, in a survey (, not one age group had less than 51% saying they could relate to the Royal family, with some age groups even having 61%. So if the British people are relating to the Royal family on many issues, how can they have no place in our society? It is obvious that as their power diminished, their role changed within the UK, and that role is one that the people of Britain appreciate.

I have disproved all three of my opponents points, and shown that the monarchy should not be abolished. I await his response.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you wolfhaines for your reply.

You say that the monarchy costs the UK nothing but then why does it say in my BBC source that the royal family cost the taxpayer �40 000 000 in 2008 {}.

Secondly from your argument I now understand that the monarchy do contribute a lot to the British government through events such as weddings and funerals but those events aren't a daily occurrence. Yes the monarchy does generate millions from tourism and other things but why would tourists come to the UK just because it is still a monarchy? according to wikipedia the top 4 International tourist arrivals by country of destination 2010 were France, The USA, China and Spain 3 of these countries have no monarchy {}. are you saying that tourists wouldn't visit the UK if it weren't still a monarchy? there are dozens of reasons tourists visit the UK.

According to the royal wedding will cost us around 50 to 100 million pounds. this money coming from the taxpayers pocket of course.
why should we be paying for the royal wedding when the monarchy can clearly afford it? Yes the Wedding will generate hundred of millions for us but businesses have warned that creating consecutive four-day weekends in April may cost the economy 5 billion pounds. {}

In my last argument I said that the monarchy has no place in __MODERN__British society.
you argued that without the monarchy there would be no Britain only Scotland, England and Wales but your wikipedia source shows that the 1707 act of union was a parliamentary act not act of the monarchy and to be honest with you wolfhaime I would be in support of no United Kingdom (but that is another topic altogether). as I said in my last argument the monarchy's duties are all handled by the British government so what is the point of keeping them? To generate money for the UK?

A question I'd like to ask you wolfhaime is why should the monarchy if they have no powers in our society today and are simply figureheads be regarded as such important people? it it because of their family history? hardly seems fair.
what separates the queen from the homeless man on the street? Not much apart from millions of pounds and family history.


Perhaps you did not understand my first point in Round One, so I shall explain it again. The Crown Estates gives all of its surplus to the treasury (�256million), in return the treasury gives the royal family what it needs (�40million), so the taxpayers are in profit by �210million. Why you then failed to take this into account when reiterating your point again is not clear. I disproved your view that the monarchy is costing the taxpayers money, so to try and make the same claim again isn't getting you anywhere.

You second point from Round Two is interesting, as believe it or not that supports my point. The UK is not in the top 4 tourist destinations, it does not have constant nice weather, it does not have beaches and clear blue waters, it also does not have a range of geophysical zones ranging from deserts to rainforests (all of which are recognised as important factors for tourism). What it does have is the worlds most famous, and most photographed monarchy. To take the monarchy out of the equation is going to push us further down the list, and lose us money. How can you claim in your first point that the monarchy helps create tourism income, then try and claim in your second point that without them we wouldn't lose money? It is not logical.

Then your third point- the royal wedding is going to cost the taxpayers �50-�100million. Well seeing as I have already proved the UK taxpayer is making over �200million profit from the Crown Estates alone, that still leaves a profit of �100million. That does not take into account the income generated from the sales boost the royal wedding will have, and the increase in tourism it will have, all of which provides even more income. To put it simply- we have more chance of the Olympics causing the taxpayers a loss in money than we have in the royal wedding causing a loss in money. Are you calling for the Olympics to be moved elsewhere? Of course not.

You tried to work around my third point of the royals not being out of place in British society, by using the semantics of 'modern British society'. But again, my third point in Round One disproved this, as all the surveys I supplied were taken in MODERN Britain, which means that modern Britain likes, wants, and can relate to the monarchy. So to restate this same point is still getting you nowhere. It is also clear that you do not realise that the idea of a Republic is far older than even Christianity, so that is hardly modern itself. In fact, the system of a Constitutional Monarchy is a newer concept than that of a Republic. So if we want to use semantics we can say our system is more modern than adopting a Republic.

The monarchy's duties are performed by government are they? So being an ambassador of trade for Britain is handled by a government official? Or being the head of the Church of England is handled by a government official? My point is simple. Government and the Monarchy separated hundreds of years ago, they have had different roles since then. To try and claim that the current monarchy is suppose to have the roles of a far distant monarchy is nonsensical. Perhaps you should remove yourself from the idea of an absolute monarchy, and bring yourself to the reality of our monarchy.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no real power, but he is seen as important. The head of Oxfam has no real power, but they are seen as important. Ghandi, Mother Teressa, Albert Einstein, the list goes on. You're essentially saying that importance only comes with power, which goes against your attempt to compare a homeless man on the street with the Queen.

My family history stretches back hundreds of years, in fact, it stretches back hundreds of thousands of years, as does yours. Does that mean we should be exiled? It is very clear that your argument is based around resentment of wealth, especially that of passing wealth on to children. Hate to break it to you, but thousands of millionaires and billionaires do that every year, should we abolish inheritance full stop? Of course not. Seeing as the Queen cannot vote, and is impartial on political matters, she is actually less of a threat to the people of the UK than a multi-millionaire such as Lord Ashcroft, who actively pumped millions into the Conservative Party in the run up to the 2010 election. The influence that his wealth brings, without the checks and balances that the monarchy has, is far more immoral than that of the Queen.

It is also very clear that I have already disproved your three points, so no matter how much you retype them, it isn't going to make them true.
Debate Round No. 2


The_presence forfeited this round.


My opponent decided that instead of formulating new arguments (or repeating his unsupported 3 points yet again), he would deactivate his account.

I will therefore keep this last round brief.

The 3 arguments my opponent put forward were:

1) The monarchy costs the taxpayers money.
2) The treasury would benefit from the abolition of the monarchy.
3) The monarchy has no place in 'modern' British society.

I disproved all three of these by providing evidence that:

1) The taxpayers actually make a profit from the monarchy
2) The treasury wouldn't be able to confiscate the wealth of the monarchy as it is not the proceeds of crime, but an inheritance. And that seeing as the taxpayers make a profit from the monarchy, to abolish them would lose us money.
3) The majority of people in all surveys support the monarchy, and can relate to the monarchy. Thus showing that British society wants the monarchy, and so they have a place in that society.

Thanks for reading.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
At first I agreed with pro but after reading cons arguments, I see they are clearly better.
Posted by wolfhaines 7 years ago
The_presence has deactivated his account, so he won't be making his third round rebuttal. Typical.
Posted by awesumdebator 7 years ago
same here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by darkkermit 7 years ago
interesting debate. I'll vote on it once it ends.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 5 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: A complete victory for Con. Pro forfeited so there goes conduct. Con's arguments were not defeat and he showed much more reliable sorces.
Vote Placed by petersaysstuff 7 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I vote Con because a) Pro forfeited and b) Con provided evidence that the monarchy is making the people money and that has gone unrefuted.