Should we scrap the Monarchy in the UK? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.









Should we scrap the Monarchy in the UK?

Debate Information

Is it time we did away with the Monarchy of England?

I just had a skim read of this: http://pitchforkcosmonaut.org/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-a-monarchy-in-britain/. I saw some good arguments from both sides although I think the most persuasive came from the side that was against a monarchy. As it stands I am leaning to the side of being against having a monarchy. What do you think?






Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Just bumping this as we now have a category for Europe. Yay! :+1:



  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 4021 Pts   -   edited February 23
    My understanding is that in the UK the monarchy is mostly just a tradition, and although nominally the king/queen holds quite a bit of power and can even single-handedly declare wars, in practice these powers are never used - and should they be used, most likely the parliament will prevent the action from happening.

    It is much worse in countries like Thailand or even Spain, where there are laws preventing the monarch from being openly criticized. In the UK, as I understand it, such laws are either non-existent, or non-used.

    As such, I do not think that this is such a big deal. Granted, it certainly is a relic of old times, completely unnecessary. It would be nice to "privatize" it: just give the royal family the Buckingham Palace to live in and cheer for them - and let the theory and practice match each other. ;)

    P.S. Would absolutely love to see here more discussion of other countries. It is just the US, the US, the US 99% of the time... Let us internationalize things up!
    ZeusAres42Debater123PlaffelvohfenJohn_C_87LiamThePerson
  • MayCaesar said:
    My understanding is that in the UK the monarchy is mostly just a tradition, and although nominally the king/queen holds quite a bit of power and can even single-handedly declare wars, in practice these powers are never used - and should they be used, most likely the parliament will prevent the action from happening.

    It is much worse in countries like Thailand or even Spain, where there are laws preventing the monarch from being openly criticized. In the UK, as I understand it, such laws are either non-existent, or non-used.

    As such, I do not think that this is such a big deal. Granted, it certainly is a relic of old times, completely unnecessary. It would be nice to "privatize" it: just give the royal family the Buckingham Palace to live in and cheer for them - and let the theory and practice match each other. ;)

    P.S. Would absolutely love to see here more discussion of other countries. It is just the US, the US, the US 99% of the time... Let us internationalize things up!

    I agree with some of what you say here, especially about internationalizing things up.

    Moreover, it can be argued that the Monarchy is a big deal when money comes into it. Now, while the current Royal Family cannot be blamed for the sins of their ancestors that still doesn't excuse the fact that they have money which is technically and arguably rightfully not theirs. This money could also put to good use than is currently being done.
    MayCaesarPlaffelvohfen



  • Debater123Debater123 576 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 What I would do with the monarchy is to abolish all legal privileges given to the crown, but simply fund it with a smaller budget, because then, the stability it brings and tradition would be kept, and it(I would think) would appease the anti-monarchist factions to an extent.
    ZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42 What I would do with the monarchy is to abolish all legal privileges given to the crown, but simply fund it with a smaller budget, because then, the stability it brings and tradition would be kept, and it(I would think) would appease the anti-monarchist factions to an extent.


    That does sound like a fair and reasonable thing to do.
    Debater123



  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
     we now have a category for Europe. Yay! :+1:
    Who's she? 
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited February 27
    MayCaesar said:
    My understanding is that in the UK the monarchy is mostly just a tradition, and although nominally the king/queen holds quite a bit of power and can even single-handedly declare wars, in practice these powers are never used - and should they be used, most likely the parliament will prevent the action from happening.

    It is much worse in countries like Thailand or even Spain, where there are laws preventing the monarch from being openly criticized. In the UK, as I understand it, such laws are either non-existent, or non-used.

    As such, I do not think that this is such a big deal. Granted, it certainly is a relic of old times, completely unnecessary. It would be nice to "privatize" it: just give the royal family the Buckingham Palace to live in and cheer for them - and let the theory and practice match each other. ;)

    P.S. Would absolutely love to see here more discussion of other countries. It is just the US, the US, the US 99% of the time... Let us internationalize things up!

    I agree with some of what you say here, especially about internationalizing things up.

    Moreover, it can be argued that the Monarchy is a big deal when money comes into it. Now, while the current Royal Family cannot be blamed for the sins of their ancestors that still doesn't excuse the fact that they have money which is technically and arguably rightfully not theirs. This money could also put to good use than is currently being done.
    I'm going to claim ignorance on the issue because I do not have a saturated understanding of the laws or traditions that go with the culture of the monarchy. One question I do have is how is it that the current Royal family are not the rightful owners of money they have? I think this seems to be an important aspect of the argument against the continued existence of the monarchy, and so I've taken it upon myself to crown myself a knight of the crown and shall do my best to serve your Queens honor by attempting to persuade people about a subject I have absolutely no idea about. But really, I feel the best way for me to learn anything about the culture of the monarchy, and British culture as a whole would be to try my best to make a counterargument to whatever your argument is. Of course I would need to hear the argument first to be able to do that, and of course you've only eluded to bits and pieces of said argument in that oh so overtly polite British way (meanwhile that dark sarcasm y'all got is always like a loaded pistol at the ready in a nano-moments notice if things get ugly).
    ZeusAres42
  • @MayCaesar
    My understanding is we had been debating the United states of law, not the self-governing lands called states.
  • Parliament never gave itself powers of electing King and Queen that right befalls the Church and Military with a prime minister as tie-breaker. How religious input the political bureaucracy of the Monarchy always had a lot to do with Marriage. With the past events of England, you might see how the dismissal of the Queen may not be viewed as a necessity by either church or the military.
    ZeusAres42
  • TreeManTreeMan 295 Pts   -  
    The queen is unnecessary
    everything the royals used to own should be given to a museum, and their benefits removed
    so their normal citizens 
    ZeusAres42
  • @TreeMan
    You might want to understand any Knight is not for sale nor are the property of the Queen directly, to be given or taken away from the honor that binds them to service.
  • TreeMan said:
    The queen is unnecessary
    everything the royals used to own should be given to a museum, and their benefits removed
    so their normal citizens 

    Care to elaborate on this @TreeMan?



  • John_C_87 said:
    @MayCaesar
    My understanding is we had been debating the United states of law, not the self-governing lands called states.

    You mean the US federal laws and not just the State laws right?



  • piloteer said:
    MayCaesar said:
    My understanding is that in the UK the monarchy is mostly just a tradition, and although nominally the king/queen holds quite a bit of power and can even single-handedly declare wars, in practice these powers are never used - and should they be used, most likely the parliament will prevent the action from happening.

    It is much worse in countries like Thailand or even Spain, where there are laws preventing the monarch from being openly criticized. In the UK, as I understand it, such laws are either non-existent, or non-used.

    As such, I do not think that this is such a big deal. Granted, it certainly is a relic of old times, completely unnecessary. It would be nice to "privatize" it: just give the royal family the Buckingham Palace to live in and cheer for them - and let the theory and practice match each other. ;)

    P.S. Would absolutely love to see here more discussion of other countries. It is just the US, the US, the US 99% of the time... Let us internationalize things up!

    I agree with some of what you say here, especially about internationalizing things up.

    Moreover, it can be argued that the Monarchy is a big deal when money comes into it. Now, while the current Royal Family cannot be blamed for the sins of their ancestors that still doesn't excuse the fact that they have money which is technically and arguably rightfully not theirs. This money could also put to good use than is currently being done.
    I'm going to claim ignorance on the issue because I do not have a saturated understanding of the laws or traditions that go with the culture of the monarchy. One question I do have is how is it that the current Royal family are not the rightful owners of money they have? I think this seems to be an important aspect of the argument against the continued existence of the monarchy, and so I've taken it upon myself to crown myself a knight of the crown and shall do my best to serve your Queens honor by attempting to persuade people about a subject I have absolutely no idea about. But really, I feel the best way for me to learn anything about the culture of the monarchy, and British culture as a whole would be to try my best to make a counterargument to whatever your argument is. Of course I would need to hear the argument first to be able to do that, and of course you've only eluded to bits and pieces of said argument in that oh so overtly polite British way (meanwhile that dark sarcasm y'all got is always like a loaded pistol at the ready in a nano-moments notice if things get ugly).

    The reason I came to the conclusion that they are not the rightful owners is that they are all born with a silver spoon. They didn't have to work very hard for their cash. And this royalty is basically the result of brutal wars throughout the UK centuries. What's more, is that still, billions of tax from the Brits go to the Royal family every year. @Piloteer



  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -   edited April 1
    piloteer said:
    MayCaesar said:
    My understanding is that in the UK the monarchy is mostly just a tradition, and although nominally the king/queen holds quite a bit of power and can even single-handedly declare wars, in practice these powers are never used - and should they be used, most likely the parliament will prevent the action from happening.

    It is much worse in countries like Thailand or even Spain, where there are laws preventing the monarch from being openly criticized. In the UK, as I understand it, such laws are either non-existent, or non-used.

    As such, I do not think that this is such a big deal. Granted, it certainly is a relic of old times, completely unnecessary. It would be nice to "privatize" it: just give the royal family the Buckingham Palace to live in and cheer for them - and let the theory and practice match each other. ;)

    P.S. Would absolutely love to see here more discussion of other countries. It is just the US, the US, the US 99% of the time... Let us internationalize things up!

    I agree with some of what you say here, especially about internationalizing things up.

    Moreover, it can be argued that the Monarchy is a big deal when money comes into it. Now, while the current Royal Family cannot be blamed for the sins of their ancestors that still doesn't excuse the fact that they have money which is technically and arguably rightfully not theirs. This money could also put to good use than is currently being done.
    I'm going to claim ignorance on the issue because I do not have a saturated understanding of the laws or traditions that go with the culture of the monarchy. One question I do have is how is it that the current Royal family are not the rightful owners of money they have? I think this seems to be an important aspect of the argument against the continued existence of the monarchy, and so I've taken it upon myself to crown myself a knight of the crown and shall do my best to serve your Queens honor by attempting to persuade people about a subject I have absolutely no idea about. But really, I feel the best way for me to learn anything about the culture of the monarchy, and British culture as a whole would be to try my best to make a counterargument to whatever your argument is. Of course I would need to hear the argument first to be able to do that, and of course you've only eluded to bits and pieces of said argument in that oh so overtly polite British way (meanwhile that dark sarcasm y'all got is always like a loaded pistol at the ready in a nano-moments notice if things get ugly).

    The reason I came to the conclusion that they are not the rightful owners is that they are all born with a silver spoon. They didn't have to work very hard for their cash. And this royalty is basically the result of brutal wars throughout the UK centuries. What's more, is that still, billions of tax from the Brits go to the Royal family every year. @Piloteer
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    That is a very good moral argument as to why the wealth of the crown is not the rightful property of the crown. But my question was also in a legal sense. I'm admittedly working with a very small understanding of the culture and laws that go with the crown, but just because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths, it doesn't mean they aren't the legal owners of their wealth. And it also doesn't mean they aren't the rightful owners of their wealth in a moral sense.

    It was the will of the people who put the monarchy into that position of wealth in the first place. Since it was, and it is still the people of Britain who put them into that position, is it really legally or morally not their wealth? It's also worth noting that your argument against the notion the wealth of the crown is not legitimately theirs would seem less valid in times of unity. It's hard to imagine that you would have as much tread with that argument during the blitz when the whole of Britain came together to face an immoral foreign threat.     

    It could also be argued to cut some of, or all of the funds that go the the royal family, but still let them retain their position. It could also be argued that they give some of that money back and have them work with a smaller budget. Even if they weren't significantly wealthy, that doesn't mean they can't still retain their position. The royal budget is not as important as the importance the royal family represents to the culture of Britain as a whole.    
    ZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 1364 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I would like to extend my heartfelt condolences to the royal family and the great people of Britain for the loss of Prince Philip. 
    Debater123ZeusAres42anarchist100
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch