Should the monarchy in the UK be abolished?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

The monarchy of the United Kingdom, commonly referred to as the British monarchy, is the constitutional form of government by which a hereditary sovereign reigns as the head of State of the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies (the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man) and the British Overseas Territories. The current monarch is King Charles III, who ascended the throne this year in 2022, upon the death of Queen Elizabeth II, who was the ascended the throne in 1952.

The monarchy of the United Kingdom should be abolished

Arguments for

• Argument for Economically there seems to be no need for a monarch. The Sovereign Grant is expected to be in the region of £34 million per year, although the campaign group Republic claims that the total cost to the taxpayer is closer to £200 million .
  • Objection This is merely an investment that reaps rewards for the tourism industry.
    • Objection According to Visit England, none of the royal residences are in the list of England's top 20 tourist attractions . England's most visited historic residence is the Tower of London, which is no longer run by the Crown.
    • Objection If the monarchy would be abolished tomorrow, the economy would likely receive a boost from having Buckingham Palace and other residences fully open to fee-paying tourists.
• Argument for If egalitarian principles are followed, there is no reason to believe some people should inherit political power simply by being born. With an unelected Head of State, UK´ democracy is incomplete.
  • Objection The public feels good about the monarchy.
    • Objection Perhaps the public felt good about Elizabeth Windsor, the person. Many US citizens might feel good about (former) President Jimmy Carter, but not like to have him forever as an unelected president.

Arguments against

• Argument against Becoming a republic nation has few concrete advantages, compared to UK´ current (good) situation.
  • Objection Equality amongst all citizen is a pretty good advantage. Not having someone have more power because of the family they were born in is an advantage
• Argument against The British monarch represents the UK, not the ephemeral, often unpopular politics of the UK. The King or Queen is, quite literally, the face of the nation.
  • Objection The British monarch has at least great de jure political power, so it does represent UK´ politics.
• Argument against The Queen has never taken a day off during her 60-year reign, and the same can be said of most of the other senior royals .
  • Objection This is not a sufficient condition for holding the position of Head of State. Is the Queen the most hard-working British citizen? Unlikely.
• Argument against Public support for the monarchy has never been higher; 80% of people want to keep the status quo, with only 13% saying they would rather abolish the Royal Family.
  • Objection An objective of a debate is to examine good arguments for the motion. If these are found, perhaps the public can be convinced to change their stance. A public support for a motion or position does not automatically make it good: there was good public support for slavery in Ancient Greece and in southern states of the United States of America, yet we do not take that to mean that slavery was good.

The monarchy of the United Kingdom should be less powerful and/or not live so luxuriously.

• Argument for There is no sufficient reason why the British monarch should have as much power as they have if they are not going to use it, while it would be undemocratic if they did so.
• Argument for There is no sufficient reason why the British monarch should live so luxuriously. Taxpayer money should benefit wider society and help those in need, not ensure that people live in extreme wealth.