For nearly three-quarters of a century, Queen Elizabeth II sat on high as Britain’s monarch. With her death, however, new political momentum is building that casts fresh doubts about the future of the British Crown. Several former British colonies, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Jamaica, have debated severing ties, while Republican campaigners in Britain now see opportunity to reassess what it means to have a monarchy without offending a popular queen. King Charles III is far less beloved. And after 1,200 years, the throne to which he has ascended is more uncertain now than at any time in recent memory. The question of the monarchy’s relevance, as such, has reemerged in the public spotlight. Those who argue in favor of it say constitutional monarchies serve a moderating force in national politics, support minority interests, and provide continuity in leadership. It is human nature, they say, to have a single leader at the helm, no matter how ceremonial. Those against it point to the legacy of Britain’s checkered colonial past, claims of corruption and misuse of taxpayer funds, and persistent scandal. Against that backdrop, we debate the longevity of the British monarchy.
Phillip Blond -
English political philosopher and director of the ResPublica think tank
Blond founded ResPublica in 2009 and is an academic, journalist and author. Prior to entering politi... read bio
Against The Motion
Graham Smith -
Graham Smith has served as chief executive officer of the anti-monarchy pressure group, Republic, fo... read bio
Watch - Listen - Learn
Intelligent topics, Intelligent debates - Now available wherever you are
A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, Intelligence Squared U.S. addresses a fundamental problem in America: the extreme polarization of our nation and our politics.
Our mission is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to American public discourse.