The Instigator
Pro (for)
12 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved

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: 5/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,851 times Debate No: 16426
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)




Like most British people, I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for our monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Her Majesty has served The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth graciously and faultlessly over the many years of her reign and it would a grievous insult and an act of profound ingratitude to dissolve the Monarchy within her lifetime.

On the other hand, with very few exceptions, the rest of the Royal Family are parasitic, over-privileged, dysfunctional, in-bred aristocrats and it’s an affront to democracy that Britain’s next head of state and consort is currently destined to be a half-witted, snotty-nosed toff and his boot-faced old hag of a wife.

That’s why I suggest that a referendum should be held before the Queen passes away that would determine if the British people want to continue to be ruled by an unelected head of state or if they would rather be governed by a democratically elected president.

If the result of the referendum shows that the British people would rather have a president than have Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall lord over them, I duly affirm that, upon the death of Her Majesty The Queen, the British Monarchy should be dissolved.

Thank you.



Her majesty, the Queen of Canada who also serves as the monarch and sovereign of the United Kingdom is arguably the greatest monarch of Commonwealth/Empire. It is also true that she may not live through the next decade. So here we are, to dissolve the largest monarchy in history or not. One has to look at it from a scope beyond that as the monarch of one realm. Her majesty is the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations (Republics and Monarchies alike), the Governor of the Church of England, Queen of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis, Duke of Lancaster, Mother of all People (British Columbia), Nebraska Admiral, as well as many other titles and honours. The monarch is a central part to all of the governments of all the Commonwealth monarchies and the oldest realm needs to remain intact though in order for all of them to remain in personal union.

Her majesty is a central figure in all the governments of her realms, and that it would be reckless to dispose of the good government that has come from the Westminster system for so many years. the United Kingdom and Canada both are without wholly codified constitutions that depend on the balance that the crown and the system bring.[1] If one was to simply replace the Monarch who has no real power with a President that has no real power then there would not be enough change to justify replacing hundreds of years of tradition, and a perfectly good system with yet another partisan politician. It is hard to argue that Charles would make an.... interesting King, we shouldn't just disband and form republics at every sub-par monarch as there have been many more great Kings and Queens than ones who were below expectations. Incompetent monarchs have been few and far between and there have been many more incompetent politicians at the helm and I don't believe there should be even more incompetent politicians fighting for power.

If the United Kingdom wants greater democracy that can actually make a difference then maybe they should have a referendum to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate[2]. Doing so would keep the Commonwealth intact and averting many constitutional crises that would unarguably follow such reform.

The United Kingdom has always had an effect on many countries in the world because of its colonization and that hasn't stopped simply because they are all governed separately.

Debate Round No. 1


With thanks to my opponent, I would like to apologise for the brevity of this response: I am away from home and using my phone to send this argument.

Firstly, few people, even dyed in the wool lefties like me, have a problem with The Queen personally. It is the monarchy many people have an issue with.

The next King will be Charles and his consort will be Camilla. They are both totally out of touch with the lives ordinary British people live, and, like Marie Antoinette, are widely despised by their subjects.

However, I am not suggesting they be beheaded, just stripped of their official status, and Charles should not become head of state when his mother dies.

The Commonwealth countries will, of course, have the opportunity to allow the Royal Family to continue to rule over them and if, for example, Canadia invited them to go over there and live at their taxpayers' expense, then few people in Britain would stand in their way, I'm sure.

Thank you


In order for the United Kingdom to become a Republic there must be widespread support for it. A recent ICM poll states "A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the well as 67% of all people – including 73% of women and 57% of 18-24s – think the monarchy is relevant to life in Britain today. Only 32% disagree." [1]

Clearly this states that there is popular support for the crown in the U.K. In the rest of the commonwealth, the Monarchy is somewhat less popular so that essentially rules out your suggestion of the other realms taking on the Royals full-time. Although Charles' reign will not have high support amongst the people, I do believe that William ad Kate will bolster support for the monarchy. A full 46% believe that William should become the next King rather than Charles who only has 40% support.[1]

On the note of the taxpayer, I'm sure you knew that it only requires £41.5m/yr[2] to support the monarchy in the U.K. However, Her majesty also surrenders millions of pounds from the crown estates. "The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for the year ending March 31st, 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy...The Queen pays tax. In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis."[3]

"In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections."[3]

The United Kingdom, as well as any other republic, would not only have to pay for Prime Ministerial (Parliamentary) elections, but also for Presidential elections (Executive).

The most recent election in Canada cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $300 million.[4] Whilst the monarchy only costs Canadians $50 million. If I were to use the Canadian Vice-regal term of five years as an example that would mean that it would only cost Canadians $250 million to keep the monarchy yet it would cost them that same amount plus election costs to have a President. If a presidential election costs around the same as a parliamentary one then you add it all up and it comes out to a whopping $550 million. Canadians would be having none of that.

In the U.K. the last election I could find costs for was 2004 and that election cost Brits "more than £80m to organise." [5] And would therefore have similar cost results as a Canadian one.

So having a republic certainly won't save taxpayers in any of the commonwealth nations any more money and it would likely cost millions of more dollars and pounds than any of them can afford. So perhaps the money that would go into a republic can instead go down to paying for the deficits and massive amounts of debt that partisan politicians and 'Dyed in the wool lefties' have cost us all.


Thanks, Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by i8JoMomma 5 years ago
that old bag ain't dead yet?
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 5 years ago
Haha, I don't see how Brian used the most reliable sources Kohai... Since he didn't use any.
Posted by r_smythe 5 years ago
Monarchy is a blight on modern society. "For all men being originally equals, no one by birth should have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever." ~ Thomas Paine
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 5 years ago
If the pro's real problem is with Charles and Camilla, why not just hold a referendum to have the position of monarchy bypass them and instead go to William and Kate. After all, Charles had been divorced, and by English tradition, a divorced person isn't eligible for the throne, anyway... Not sure where societal acceptance got changed about...
Posted by Johnny_Canuck 5 years ago
I meant the 2005 British election x)
Posted by Ahijah 5 years ago
"No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."
Posted by badger 5 years ago
ye'd wanna possibly think about doing it before next tuesday!
Posted by Apollodoros 5 years ago
hm, I would take this debate if you were doing the pro part.
Posted by BennyW 5 years ago
Is this debate open to non-Brits?
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
I would take this but I'm in the middle of seven other debates.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Eh, I have to give it to Brian. Con had better conduct, but Brian had better contentions IMO. Down with the Authoritarians!
Vote Placed by kohai 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid effort from both sides. However, I agree with pro for the most part. There are just way too many tax dollars that is going to the royal family.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Solid argument from Con, Brian seemed a little flat.