Instigator / Pro

THBT Monarchies Should be Abolished Worldwide


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Burden of proof is shared. No new arguments last round.

Monarchy: undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person.

Round 1
The Queen of England. A nice person for sure, but ruler? It's hard to say for sure.

I. Needless expenses and Greed

By nature of the "monarchy" implanted throughout the world, they have lived a life of unnecessary luxury. You don't see other presidents or even dictators running around with golden cars or jewels in their crown. Sadly, the civil list which is paid by hard-working citizens stands at 7.9 million pounds and is unlikely to change any time soon. The growing cost overall is highlighting the greater need for impact shown by the royalty. Even in 2018-2019, it was already at 67 million pounds. For all of these costly operations, we'd have expected some incredible gain. But the royal household is merely using the money for catering, hospitality, and ceremonies. Truly, even CNN reports that "The Sovereign Grant -- an annual lump sum from the government -- is essentially an expense account, covering the costs of travel, security, staff and the upkeep of royal palaces." To overcome this, Con must convincingly show the benefits outweigh the detriments in a way unique to monarchies.

As researcher Atkins notes, the royal crown is encouraged to hold onto extra finances for more power. He argues that land, money, and other resources "sit alongside – and increasingly interact with – the new global wealth elites and their expanding super-prime property portfolios". The concentration of wealth is unfair and seems remarkably similar to a corrupt corporation, rather than a just ruling force. The practices of the monarchy are also biased and unreasonable. Scholar Clancy also analyzes how the British monarchy acts remarkably similar to the corporations that we despise. The annual grant of money is remarkably similar to a performance-based reward. Entrepreneur David McClure remarks how uncannily close it is to "the generous performance-related pay packages granted to business executives by their indulgent boards". The crown had grown incredibly greedy. The Guardian notes over 100 tenants were evicted from their land so that their homes could be sold for profit. 

II. Lack of power

It is well known that the Queen of England is merely a figurehead. If we look at the official publications in the parliament, despite her name and respected treatment, her power is nearly none. The paragraph listing her main powers says, "they include the rights to advise, encourage and warn Ministers in private; to appoint the Prime Minister and other Ministers; to assent to legislation; to prorogue or to dissolve Parliament; and (in grave constitutional crisis) to act contrary to or without Ministerial advice." At first, the last clause seems like the monarch may choose to declare an emergency, yet when is the last time they have done this? Practically never. Even in major wars, the minister John Major successfully took part in the gulf war without permission from the Queen. A news article covering this event only notes the persuasion by the cabinet, glossing over the monarchy aspect of England. The Queen is completely useless when it comes to actual rule. Why should we keep some figure that we say has power, and give massive finances to, yet merely showcase her as a figure? Is this not completely demeaning for the Queen? In the end, the unelected and unaccountable monarch seems completely pointless.

III. Divisive Nature

By keeping the monarchy, we are essentially speaking out against democratic values and the ideals of the people. Indeed, looking back on the past, the medieval monarch tradition relates to feudalism, which is unfitting in the modern democratic state. The disparity between the poor and the rich could never be bridged, and most people had little say in the way of the leaders. One common argument for keeping the monarch is to respect the past culture and the quirks that make Britain what it is today. But by refusing to see the mistakes in the leaders, we are stuck in the past and cannot learn from our mistakes. Why does the monarchy deserve to have their title? They were merely lucky to be born to inherit the title. By nature of the way of the power of people, it seems clear that the monarchy system is absurd. There is very little way to even remove them if the public sees them unfit, unlike the US's impeachment system at the very least keeping the president in check.

Not only is the monarchy politically divisive, but it also socially divides people. The very same Clancy from Arg I notes similarities to businesses sees that the monarchy fails to treat its workers fairly. The bias and choice of workers are unacceptable: "While the senior staff is typically headhunted and often employed without a formal interview (Arbiter, 2014Hoey, 2003Somerset, 1984), lower-level staff must complete an application form, undertake an interview, and sometimes attend an Assessment Day (Brookes, 2015)". The encouragement of landowners and white people having high status and power furthers inequality. 

IV. Immorality

It is simply immoral to keep the monarch running, especially if we "respect history" as Britain monarchy fans tell us to. It is precisely because the past represents Britain's mistakes that we should deny the monarchy. In Clancy's final point in her article, Britain had countless unacceptable acts. Even from centuries ago, "the British Empire implemented violent regimes of genocide, famine, enslavement, indentured labor, imprisonment and torture". All of this was for personal gain. The exploitation of people was evident in the past, and it remains in the present. The "Koh-i-noon", the famous diamond stolen from India for coronation prove the corruption in the monarchy. And while the commonwealth attempts to uphold laws, the states are easily able to override them. For example, there is no discrimination allowed, yet homosexuality is banned in some member states. The royal family is going above and beyond their given powers and responsibilities. They have even been involved in an arms trade, highlighting the fact that they are merely a corporation in disguise.

In conclusion, the monarchy is immoral, costly, anti-democratic, dividing the people, and an absurd system. From Britain's example alone, we should abolish monarchies worldwide in order to promote freedom and equality.
since my opponent only talks about the British monarchy I will revolve my case primarily around this example as well.


While it's true that the Monarchy carries a high price tag with it, it pays for itself. A report from Brand Finance finds that while Britons pay millions in taxes to sustain the monarchy, the monarchy through attracting tourism and through business dealings generates nearly two billion pounds annually for the British economy. There are estimates that tourists spent more than a billion dollars when they flocked to Britain to observe the wedding of Harry and Megan. Britain also is often able to secure lucrative trade deals following Royal visits to other nations. Also, the annual tax for the monarchy amounts to around a measly four pounds per citizen. These benefits are on top of the De Facto taxes that the crown has been paying since 1993.

My opponent makes the claim that an example of the Crown's greed is that they are evicting people from their homes. However, quoting from my opponents own source: 

the royals have no direct oversight role in the crown estate’s dealings
If you think that this action reminds you of the actions of one of the corporations you don't like, it's probably because one of these corporations did it. Not the monarchy. In order for this point to have any weight, my opponent must prove that rising rent prices wouldn't be happening in the absence of the monarchy. A claim that I don't think has any basis in reality.

Lack of power

In his next contention paragraph, my opponent claims that the role of the British monarch as a figurehead makes them redundant and thus subject to removal. However, I see this diminished role of political leadership as a benefit, not a detriment. As my opponent points out, one of the roles of the monarch is to advise Prime Ministers and other officials in private. This is something that every sitting Prime Minister since the 1950s have valued as an opportunity to speak with someone with experience outside of a political and party-aligned setting. This allows for practical and productive discussion to happen inside of the government without having a bunch of jockeying for position and power. Moreover, the role of the monarch as an apolitical figurehead allows for the monarch to be a unifying figure amongst the British people leading to a stronger national identity and social cohesion amongst Britons. Contrary to my opponent's claims, the monarchy remains a popular institution amongst Britons with less than 20% supporting the abolition of the monarchy. A fact that has been consistent throughout the years.

To further touch on divisiveness as I've mostly covered my arguments on this particular topic already, My opponent would need to show that a Republican form of government would be less divisive than a constitutional monarchy. One needs only to look at my own nation, The United States, to see that we aren't all sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya over here in Republic Land. We're extremely divided along political lines. It's a fact of life that any freedom-loving nation is going to have divisions within its population. If people have the freedom to say and believe what they want, then not everyone will monolithically express the same opinion which leads to divisions. The measure of how good our country is doing is in how we manage these divisions and manage to work together as a society to advance our shared interests.


While I would agree that a hereditary absolute monarchy is immoral, I don't have any qualms with constitutional monarchy as it exists in Britain. My opponent seems to believe that the British should abolish the monarchy in an act of retribution for past injustices. However, it is more in keeping with prudence to make our decisions on our governments based on the present rather than fulminating over an age that passed a long time ago. He claims that the monarchy is immoral because the commonwealth tries to uphold laws but states can override them. I was under the impression that the monarchy didn't enforce or make laws. I'm confused. In regard to arms deals, I don't see anywhere in my opponent's source where it says anything other than Prince Charles sometimes talks to the Saudis, as most heads of state do, and also that British arms companies sell weapons to Saudi Arabia. It never says, as far as I can tell, that the Royals are selling weapons to anyone. Also, just by reading his source I can feel the bias dripping off of it.

It is for these reasons that I can only see a vote in negation of the resolution.
Round 2

Con claims that Brand Finance states the two billion in tourism were directly due to the royal family, but offers no source for actual support. Contrary to his claim, Wales Online notes that only 500 million pounds was actually related to the royal family and culture. confirms that over 300 million pounds were attributed to various fashion effect, "Charlotte Effect" and "George Effect", and also noting that the cost is also over 300 million pounds due to the amount of security necessary. The Conversation admits there is some gain, but further reduces Con's impact by noting how nebulous the gains actually are. "VisitBritain states that 64% of visitors going to Britain plan to visit famous monuments and buildings with over a third of tourists visiting London listing a tour of Buckingham Palace as a bucket list activity." So clearly it's actually ambiguous whether or not the economic gain is worth it or not. 

Con has dropped the performance based reward system of the Crown bearing remarkable resemblance to a corporation. 

Con has dropped the fact that hundreds of tenant were evicted by the Crown estate in order for their personal profits. He tries to avoid this by saying the royals have no direct say, but the news article clearly states that "The crown estate, which helps bankroll the Queen by giving the monarch 25% of its profits". If there were no monarchy to benefit from this action, there would be no reason to keep the crown estate. After all, republics and democracies don't have so-called "crown estates".

Lack of power + Divisiveness

Con tries to show that the Queen may have some influence, but it is impossible to say it is representative of the people. I repeat that she is not elected, and chosen in a haphazard fashion due to birth right. Her political neutrality seems difficult to ascertain given her raised background, and we don't know how skilled she is in politics and laws. Not only so, she must still follow suit with the actual action that the minister decides to take. The advisor role seems counter-intuitive to what the monarchy is supposed to represent. For such a seemingly important position, she both has to approve important legislation yet carry out potentially contradictory results from the minister. This seems very poor distribution of power to me.

Con has dropped the argument that deriving rule from birthright is inherently unfair and should be abolished.

While con shows a generic support for the monarchy, the crowd seems contradicting themselves with only half supporting the Queen and a very poor 3% accepting Prince Charles. With inability to elect new leaders, it's clear that they're patient enough to wait it out. But it's tough to say if being lazy and accepting the status quo is truly a good idea. Indeed, while the monarchy survives now, they do not think it is a long term institution. While waiting for tourism to die down and the culture to change, only a quarter of the people still think the monarchy will be in place within 100 years. Contrast this to the US democracy, which has lasted since the beginning of the country. It seems like in terms of long term stability, people believe in some other type of government better than the current status.

Con has dropped the fact that the monarchy hires workers in an unfair way that promotes inequality.


The Monarchy has to approve of the laws. "The Queen plays a constitutional role in opening and dissolving Parliament and approving Bills before they become law."
As such the monarchy's uselessness is proved further here. As for the arms deals, The Guardian also suggests that the royal family may be involved in such suspicious business. The stress on the need for transparency and the potential for corruption go to show that the monarchy simply cannot be trusted. Note how con dropped the fact that a famous diamond was stolen for the coronation.

Notice how each argument I made, con drops a crucial part that is difficult to address. He has not even attempted to fulfill his burden of proof to keep the monarchy. It is clear that the monarchy has too much problems to solve and thus should be abolished. Now back to con.
Round 3
I apologize, but I've been given orders to go to Tech Escort school and won't be able to do much of anything on here for the next four weeks or so. I'll have to forfeit this debate. 

Vote Undefeatable.
Round 4