"This Royal Baby Should Never Be Crowned" - The Versus Debate 

Its hilarious how the pro-royal woman completely ducks the question the professor bloke forwards by just stating "that's the way it is, people like it, deal with it." That doesn't answer the question one bit, why does she think it's fair that everyone else is excluded based on blood?

Tourists do NOT come to see the Queen. They hope to see her, but often most people don't get to. But they are just as happy to stare at her palaces and castles. Remove the royals, tourists will still come to see the buildings for sure!

At around 29:00 we get the most Mom answer ever "Because it's the system we've got. Deal with it."

I love the question of the guy at 26:30 "Why should any other English citizen be excluded from being the head of state?

Really? 80% of Britons support the monarchy... I'm ashamed to share a country with them. Can we grow up please and have a real democracy like a proper country, its 2014 ffs

With the Monarchy we have seen the abolishion of slavery, woman votes, invasion from the likes of Hitler, Napoleon, and foreign Kings repelled; by often staunch and confident monarchs...... As a New Zealand Maori, I would like to be a voice of how the British Empire, now the Commonwealth of Nations has been a SUCCESS in many ways! I am proud of of our joined heritage. And guess what?! Those of us here in the commonwealth and those of you in the United Kingdom can aspire to high office we can become Prime Minister or Governor General or Admiral in the Royal Navy if we work hard enough, we have the freedom to grow and be the people WE choose to be and at very little cost. So we can never be Head of State? But we Can be leader of Government.. Also the cost of Monarchy is far less than a Presidency, then compare that to the income the Crown lands produce (for Westminster, NOT Buckingham Palace) annually around 400mil to the measly 35mil about 60p from the pound by the British tax payer in a pittance for the actual job the Monarch does, (That costing does pay for the offices or work of the Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duke & Duchess of Cambridge or Prince Harry ) The lady from Portugal Was right in saying, think carefully, Portugal has Monarchy for 800 years only to have it replaced by a Dictator! Russia, China, America,France all Republics of sorts and each with high levels of inequality and little or NO chance of average people getting the top job....

We see jenny bond going around the country talking to the young about the monarchy all the time ! Ha NOT , it's time to put the princess's back into the fairytale books they came out of

To those who ask what would you replace the monarch with I reply what replaces an appendix that is surgically removed?

It's absolutely foolish to believe that having a monarchy undermines britain's status as democratic country. The UK is in fact MORE democratic than many other countries. Which one is more democratic? The United KINGDOM or the DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of Congo?

Bond didn't answer his question

There is no rational argument for monarchy. We all know this...but damn, I do love a tiara!

Can i just say this was the worst monarchy debate ever...so many points for both sides went unmentioned and many that were mentioned by both sides were wrong or irrelevant.

God save the queen!

It doesn’t seem like this is a very fair debate, there seems to be only one person in the whole room which is pro monarchy and the other three speakers are either against or unsure. Even the audience is packed with people for the motion. I think this is because of how the objective was set up not as a question but as a statement “the royal baby should never be crowned” and I feel that it would attract persons of that feeling rather than being divided evenly which is more than the republicans deserve. Even if they are at 20% support and want to call themselves 1 in 6 people that still leaves 80% against them so in reality it doesn’t matter anyhow, in their lifetime or really anytime close to now, the monarchy won’t go away.

This pt was never debated - they said an elected head of state will interfere in politics, but there is a law that prevents that. So if the elected head interferes in politics, he or she will be reprimanded or even replaced. Problem solved. You can't remove a royal who interferes in politics so easily and Charles DOES interfere in politics.

From a proud Yank and direct (4th) grandson of a brave and heroic Revolutionary War militia sergeant, "1776!"

In reply to Matvei Stanonis... No. America is too young for monarchy. It is the spirit of America to be forever young, to retain the essence of youth, the pioneer, innovative, brash, optimistic, energetic, very bright, not always prudent. As an American, I consider English monarchy part of my personal heritage because it was the heritage of America's founding fathers. It doesn't matter that my family tree grew up in Germany. The concept of America derives from England. It is a permanent bond that I revere.

This is very old. It is 2023, April. King Charles III will be coronated on May 6, and Camilla will officially be crowned QUEEN, not Queen-Consort. Now, I am American, yet of recent I have become an Anglophile (I am pretty sure.) Now, prior to learning about the American Revolution, well there was those tax and tea issues...but, Americans believe the UK to be a monarchy "in name only." We have given up trying to understand why there are so many Royals in the UK. Their money, jewels, cars, carriages, and palaces.

Recall, the Monarchy is also the The Supreme Governor of the Church of England . In 1998 , Johnathan Freeland's book , " Bring Home the Revolution: The case for a British Republic " was published . Here he is moderating a debate called "The Royal Baby Should Never be Crowned ." Freeland has moderated debate's on whether statues of Britain's Protestants historical figures should be taken down . He has also written numerous articles spreading fear and criticizing Brexit. . Would it be accurate to say these 3 examples show a clear pattern that Johnathan Freeland is trying to erase Britain's Protestant Heritage? .

LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!

wow her points on keeping the monarch vary from they love them to its someone the prime minister can unburden himself to. really. is that what the tax payers mo ey is going to??? for that?

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN👑 ... GOD SAVE THE MONARCHY👑 HAIL! HAIL! BRITANNIA👑

no because you never learn of henry the 8th beheading his wives or mary 1st killing protestants for being protestants paedophilia in our days was common a couple hundred years ago and was the norm and abductions happened and still happen in alot of countries including America which is not a monarchy

'We need to have a full debate we never get one' ..................... WTF IS THIS THEN agxgdvcghcfdhhfrf

The divine right appeared in during the reign of Alfred The Great, were he began a relationship with Christianity, in exchange of lands and power, Christianity give him and his descendant the "divine power" to give his power and reign legitimacy.

It is an expensive institution and it does irk me that budget cuts have resulted in reduced numbers of police in London, resulting in an abhorrent rise in crime, its not really improving the quality of life in Britain it seems. Isn't that the most important thing?

God save the queen...from a member of the commonwealth, that CHOOSE to be part of the crown!

The most democratic country in the nation,according to democracy indeces,is Norway this year.And last year it was Sweden.Both are monarchies.Ergo ,monarchy haters,sorry to aprise you of the fact that M&D are not irreconcilible.By the way,at the rear of the ranking is a name that might interest you---People's democratic REPUBLIC of North Korea!

The monarch is actually a strong ganrantee to democracy.Take the case of Hitler and Mussolini.Hitler successfully stole the power of the president,combining it with his chancellor's power,he became an absolute dictator.On the contrary,Mussolini could never steal the authority of his king,making him somewhat restrained.And when he went too far,he was ousted by the king(representing his people's will),replaced by another cabinet,which could never happen in Germany oweing to it being a republic.

I disagree. I say it should be crowned, with a hardback copy of the Human Rights Act.

38:18 well if our head of state should be elected then surely the cultural destiny of our country should be voted on as well. Has it?

A Republican is by definition traitor.

Well, as an American who has seen his countrymen elect George W. Bush TWICE and, God help us, nominate someone whose name I will not even say for president more recently, I honestly think the idea of a head of state who ISN'T elected sounds AWESOME. A politician's job is basically to get elected, but a monarch doesn't have to worry about that and can focus on serving their country's interests in diplomatic negotiations with other countries. As for the professor's question, "Why shouldn't everyone be allowed a chance to become head of state?" Well, it seems to me that, as Douglas Adams once said, the people who WANT to become leader are very often the very people who SHOULDN'T become leader. The idea of a person who was born into the role, is taught to see it as a duty bestowed by fate rather than a privilege won by campaigning and deal-making, and whose job is to represent and serve their country, without having to run for office, sounds pretty great to me.

The monarchy is a sacred, beautiful, profitable, popular, unfairly criticized, and wonderful institution. I would give my limbs to have a King. I am a monarchist to the core, and it's something we need here in America.

Hello! Which parallel universe are you guys transmitting from? The greater issue facing the British public these days when Queen Elizabeth II is in her twilight reign, is not about whether her great grandson should be given an easier life, but whether Prince Charles is constitutionally unfit to be the Monarch, especially since he is a divorcee, and his Mother's Uncle was forbidden from reigning because he wanted to marry a divorcee. Also, isn't Camilla supposed to be a Catholic, and constitutionally that's forbidden?

Its basic stuff this. I cannot be head of state. My daughter cannot be head of state. My grandchild cannot be head of state.

The guy who stated because we have a monarch we don't have Obama or Mandela, forgetting that those presidents are also elected head of govts which is where they achieve their success/policies. We can have a Mandela or Obama in UK if they get elected PM.

All (but one) familes are born equal.

I would change things a little so that Royalists pay the compelte and total Royal expenses from their taxes, let people which believe otherwise off the hook, why should they pay with their hard earned cash something they don’t believe in or represents them.

Look at some of the most democratic and progressive countries in the world such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands......all monarchies.

MrFuengi,I would ask you a similar question:why seek to deprive people's rights to be knighted?If you care so much about rights why take away my rights to become a knight ,that's what we wouldn't have were it not a monarchy.Besides,there is no harm in monarchy as in slavery or misorginy ,ergo unfair to compare monarchy to slavery and sexism.

LONG LIVE THE MONARCHY!

The second man from the hangout sounds like Bane.

i don't see the point off the royal family

The problem is the royal family have to be like the rest of European ones. The size of it have to be reduced to two housholds only. No cousins born with titels. Silly traditions like bending knees and kissing rings have rased. Then the monarchy will be great.

I don't mind the monarchy, especially since they're apolitical. I like the pomp, ceremony and history of it. Royalty is appealing

From an economical, sociological, political, historical, psychological, biological, and otherwise educated standpoint I could argue quite well that the Monarchy is the best political structure in the world. I believe that I could tweak a monarch government to better fit the people's well-being more so then a democracy. Democracies, if they are to remain for a notable amount of time will ultimately lead the power away from the people. We already have created the Senate to remove decisions away from the people and the Electoral College to remove the vote from the people as "buffers" and many could argue quite well that the "general population" is still not removed from decision making enough. To influence the political opinion of the masses through propaganda is so easy and done so frequently it can be told to the public what will happen and how it will happen and their memory will fail them while watching the story unfold in front of their eyes with no hope of stopping it. It's happened time after time in history, books have been written explaining it in detail yet the collective conscious pays no mind. At this present time my biggest concern to the well being of our future generations are these people like the first lady to debate that consider themselves "progressive" and empathetic. I predicted the last half of her argument about half way through hearing her speak, it's not her opinion is a propaganda based collective conscious opinion, nothing based on real sciences.

In response to the question of the guy at 26:30 ⚠ Monarchy by birth is a: Cultured (culture is a thing) system of old, commonly agreed/understood by the people who were around at the ✴FOUNDATION✴ of the British Government . ⚠ FYI: Liberals and Conservatives (the brains actually act differently) are SEPARATE and yet agreed upon a common ✴FOUNDATION✴ (back then) . Should the monarchist have 🩸died🩸 to the liberal Republicans of old (around 1649)? NO. Long live the Queen -- you far Left @%^!'s

Gd question about who is the president of Italy Ireland Germany ect, even ask for any other monarchies in Europe, we have the most popular monarchy in the world

it's all about control really. at least, in my opinion, a monarchy is honest in opressing you than a democarcy. i live in democary and it's a full of politicians promissing you the stars and the moon but ending up giving you nothing but sweet nothings. of people who follow an alpha male one liner to his fascist dreamland. people think democary is giving people voice. but it's only who has the money,power,knowladge and skill who have voices. at least a monarchy is honest but also benelovent. surely and in the uk and most of european countries

lol, the female - 7.50 to 10,29 - who reads the dictate, should be able to speak without "professorial" help. Who did paid her?

God Save the Queen

QE2 looks like she should be in a old folks home not a palace. But I am a yank so I guess you all have to decide for yourselves. But looks pretty silly from over here.

Very succinct J Smith.

in the world,not in the nation .sorry

I disagree with the whole ceremony and titles foolishness, but I do endorse with monarchy in essence, selecting the head of state by birth as it is the most neutral and least divisive method which keeps the nation in legal and philosophical connection with it's past so it can look towards the future. Republics like the ones in Easter Europe, Russia, the USA are so backwards in mentality because they don't have a connection with their past. Also, the republicans should receive the death penalty and the monarchy is a great guarantee of democracy as there is always that peculiar guilt, that they know they only have their position because of where they were happen to be born. 

I would be interested in the Age breakdown of those polled. I would offer that those of our older people is that they are in favour of the Royals and the other un-elected officials primarily because it is what they were brought up and and taught at very young ages that these people are our betters and should be treated with the utmost of respect solely on their birth status. through out history those with a peerage were treated differently and expected to be treated as everyone's better. There are many examples of this even in history right up to our recent times. Take for example wars or more specifically the military. Your level in the military depended on your class. A person of servitude could never had been a general or any other rank. In fact, it was the land owners (landed gentry) who sent their servants and those that worked their land, of to the war. So, how could a person who had NO choice but to go off to war lead any people. Also let us remember that many, MANY, of our Grandparents here in the UK remember their parents (and themselves) as being a part of the world and time when servants were the norm and did not vote. It was not until after the War that people started to leave servitude and work in new employment fields that were emerging. So bake to my original comment about the elderly and their beliefs in the royals is that they were taught to respect unconditionally and never question the elite.

Jenny bond is still sex on legs! 💙

Long live tbe United States of America.

Is that Rosie person male or female? 😄

I poo-poo your piffle Sir!

@Mark Gable Do you really think a prime minister has the same or equal authority than the monarchy? Haha oh boy... I like when a person runs out of valid arguments and use offensive words like "idiot"

piffle. find better debate topics. this stuff is vabid.

The "no monarchy" woman makes too many contradictory statements. She opens by describing an incident in which she felt snubbed. Her argument is based on that premise. Elizabeth (the queen) has always understood her role and has played it to perfection. This woman does not understand that. She wanted "Elizabeth the Queen" to interact as "Elizabeth the Fellow Citizen" and there is no such person....never in public. Charles seems to have it muddled. A private citizen is not a monarch. British monarchy is an embodiment of Britain, a walking talking symbol of everything that Britain is past and present. In her official capacity, Diana brought monarchy further into the present and that survives in William. I recently listened to Charles speak about current events and wondered what planet he's been visiting. I keep hoping Charles and Mrs. Simpson will abdicate in favor of Wiliam, who has a foot in Britain's past and a foot in Britain's present. If monarchy can do with a revamp, William seems the better candidate.

Not for me I headed strait to Scotland forget England

I think all these debates are useless, I don't know how often you hold a referendum about this issue in the UK, but in Australia we have it about 10 years apart and the result is always the same. The republican movement is hoping for the next generation to approve the constitutional change, and they will continue to do so till Kingdom come. It is useless.

Didn't Canada ask for royal representation?

They bring in more income than expenses. They don't cost the UK tax payer anything.

Young people wont vote!?! How rude and ignorant can this woman be!! :L A huge part of any vote or election comes down to the 'young' voters darling ;)