The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, it’s time to abolish the British Monarchy

Episode Date: February 22, 2023

With the death of Queen Elizabeth, one of the longest serving monarchs in world history, the commonwealth is adjusting to a new normal and a new face of the firm, Charles III.  “God Save the Queen��� is back to “God Save the King”, there’s a new face on postage stamps, a new face on the pound, and a slew of other changes big and small.  But above all,  Britain is grappling with their identity, and what the monarchy means for them today.  For some, this means that the time has finally come to do away with the outdated parliamentary monarchy system in favor of a proper modern republic. They argue that the British Royal Family is out of touch with ordinary Britons, and represent an unsavory colonial history that must be left behind. The slew of scandals plaguing the Royal family hurts the country's image internationally.  They argue the Royals represent the past, and Britain must move into the future. But others argue that the royals serve an important albeit limited function.  Beyond representing a rich and storied history, the Royal family is a unifying force amid political and cultural divisions. And without the royal family, the UK loses an important piece of their cultural identity at a time when Britains are struggling to define themselves.  The Royal family may have problems, but they’re existence is necessary. Arguing for the motion is Polly Toynbee, columnist for The Guardian newspaper since 1998.Toynbee previously worked as social affairs editor for the BBC and also for The Independent newspaper.  Arguing against the motion is Richard Fitzwilliams, freelance royal commentator, film critic, and vocal monarchist.  He has covered the largest royal events of the last two decades for the BBC, Sky, CTV, CBC, and Al-Jazeera. Speaker Quotes  POLLY TOYNBEE: “ If they are the sovereign and we are the subjects, we are subject to the absurdity of this extraordinarily ordinary family, who had after all the highest education available ended up being so very little intellectually interested in anything, beyond the polo and corgis”. RICHARD FITZWILLIAMS: “There's nothing ephemeral about a reign such as the Queen, and there's nothing ephemeral about an institution that's lasted a millennia.”.   The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths - @rudyardg.   Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 10+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events.This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/   Senior Producer: Jacob Lewis Editor: Adam Karch   Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

When you're a journalist and people don't trust you, it's always your fault. These people need to be represented. They are Canadian. They deserve to have a voice and a seat at the table. It is time to go back to the office, and the time is now. Russia had reasons to be concerned. They had reasons to be fearful. We're at an absolute turning point in reproduction. This is the problem with realism. They just treat all countries the same. They don't distinguish between dictatorships and democracies. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode we provide you with a

civil and substand-up debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. It's time to abolish the British monarchy. I declare before you all, but my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be debated to your service. This is BBC News from London. Buckingham Palace has announced the death of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. King Charles III. Now, officially beginning his reign. So what's next for the royal family and for the monarch? Could the death of Queen Elizabeth the second be the beginning of the end for the British monarchy? Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffith. Well, with the death of Queen Elizabeth,

one of the longest serving monarchs in the world, the Commonwealth and the UK is adjusting to a new normal, a new so-called face on the firm. His name, Charles III. And with his arrival, out is is God save the queen, and in is God save the king, along with changes big and small, from our postage stamps to our currency, to a sense of what this institution the monarchy means for us all. For some, this change represents a moment to do away with the institution of the monarchy itself and embrace the modern republic, both in the UK and across the Commonwealth. proponents of republicanism argue that the royals and the institution they represent should be consigned to the dustbin of history and we should all in the 21st century embrace a republican constitutional model with an elected head of state the principle of hereditary power i think it is absolutely a warrant in 2022 um it's got you can't have any philosophical or moral justification for one family

having political power like that just by virtue of their birth. But others argue that the institution of the monarchy serves an important role in our society. For centuries in the United Kingdom and more recently in the Commonwealth, it has stood for the rule of law and the peaceful transition of power from one government to the next. The monarchy also represents a cultural touchstone that unites people across country, and across generations. And finally, for Great Britain at least, the monarchy is a powerful source of soft power. It's a representation of what many consider the very best of Britain, its culture and its institutions, fueling millions of tourists visiting Windsor Castle, Buckingham

Palace, and the city of London. Well, on this installment of the monk debates, We're going to dig into this debate by moving the motion, be it resolved. It's time to abolish the British monarchy. Arguing for the motion is Polly Toimby, columnist for the Guardian newspaper since the 1990s. She previously worked as a social affairs editor at the BBC and also for the independent newspaper. She is a self-professed Republican. Arguing against the motion is Richard Fitzwilliam, freelance royal commentator, film critic, and vocal, monitoring. monarchist. He has covered the biggest royal events from weddings to funerals to everything in between for the last two decades for BBC, Sky, CTV, CBC, and Al Jazeera. Polly, Richard, welcome to the monk debates. Hello. Hello. Great to be in conversation with both of you. A fantastic, to the point resolution today, be it resolved. It's time to abolish the British monarchy. We couldn't be more straightforward. And again, to the point, with this motion before the house.

Polly, you're up first. Let's put a couple minutes on the show clock and turn the program over to you. Well, we've just had the death of our longest reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth, and that seemed a very good time to say, let's put an end to this whole charade. She was much respected,

but the time has really come to an end when we need to have a monarch of any kind. The moment she drew her last breath, Vivat Rex sounds out, And the next king is appointed without any of us being asked at all, whether we want another king or who we want to be king. It's an extremely undemocratic process. And ahead of us, we have two more kings already lined up for the same process to happen all over again without a breathing space for us to make a choice. There's a particular reason why in this country.

This would be a good time to end the monarchy because we need complete constitutional change. We have no real written constitution, and the constitution needs somebody such as we have, and be better if we had a written one, somebody to protect it. A monarch can't do that in the way that a president would across most other European countries. For instance, when Boris Johnson, our recent and disgraced Prime Minister, prorogued Parliament, sent it away in the most arbitrary way, when he withdrew British citizenship from people at whim, when he ignored breaking the ministerial code, there was nobody to say no.

When it came to sending Parliament away, he asked the Queen, he told the Queen, the Queen was not in a legal position to say you can't do that. If we'd had a proper President who was guardian of a constitution, they would be able to defend our rights against arbitrary power. Otherwise, we have a Parliament that is absolutely, and the control of the Prime Minister of the day. And I think we've just learnt in the bitterest way that this doesn't work. So for good constitutional reasons,

as well as for emotional reasons, you know, the fantasy of having a monarch, the feudalism of it, which is embedded in our psyche, I fear. Little girls being princesses, little boys being princes. It's time to democratise our state. Thank you. Polly Toinby.

Okay. Richard, your opportunity now, an opening statement. Two minutes on the clock. Take us away. This is not the time to abolish a monarchy which has proved its worth in Britain and in the Commonwealth and indeed goes back a millennium. It is the most high-profile institution and I believe it is appropriate for contemporary Britain constitutionally, and I hope we will discuss this subsequently in the program. I think it's absolutely pivotal.

We have someone above party politics, a symbol of continuity and stability, as the late Queen unquestionably was. Republicans, they want, they have no poll who suggested this. There's no major political party wanting this change. The powers the monarch has are the powers, it denies to others.

I will deal a bit later with the issue. issue of Johnson and the prerogation of Parliament, but I will say there are certain specific things, the charitable aspects of monarchy, the projection of soft power, the ceremonial

and the excellence that we do this in Britain, the links with the Commonwealth, also there are issues such as tourism, cost, various aspects of it that I hope we will deal with. Monarchy is much more than mere celebrity, and indeed the inherited

aspect of it. There's an advantage because you know who is going to be the next head of state, not a superannuated party hack. So I believe there's a deeper loyalty to the monarchy in this country. It's going through a difficult time at the moment. But there's no question that we need it in the contemporary world of Britain. Thank you, Richard Fitzwilliam. You are listening to our debate today. The motion is simple to the point. Be it resolved. It's time to abolish. the British monarchy. Okay, our opportunity for rebuttals, Polly, you're up first. The idea that we'd be incapable of producing a dignified president is absurd. I mean, just look across the Irish Sea there in Ireland. They've had extremely distinguished presidents who've been

well above politics, not superannuated politicians. I think Michael O'Higgins, who's their president at the moment. We've had a whole series of very good presidents, and I think that's mostly true across Europe. They stand there doing the ceremony. I agree. Every country needs ceremony, pomp and circumstance. They don't interfere with politics, but they do defend our rights, and we have no one to do that. The absolute power of the Prime Minister in Parliament is very frightening, and I think the odd thing is it's not because a monarchy is too powerful that we need to do away with it. It's because a monarchy has no power, and being unelected can never have power to check over mighty prime ministers.

Thank you, Polly Toinby. Okay, the last rebuttal here, Richard, goes to you. I say that constitutionally, the monarch performs several very, very significant features, which, first, as I say, above party politics, secondly, the symbol of continuity and stability. there's also the fact that the monarch is head of the armed forces and indeed the civil service, the judiciary and the church and umbrella on which other faiths in our diverse society can flourish. And those are extremely important. There's also the soft power of the monarch going abroad and other members of the royal family that's tremendously important for Britain,

for our culture and for British business. So far as the ceremonial is concerned, indeed, we all need it, I agree. But then of course, course, no one does it as well as Britain, and look at the magnificence with Buckingham Palace. So far as charity is concerned, I think it's an absolutely pivotal part of the monarchy and its work with, it's the Prince's Trust, the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, from the Ursula Prius to Invictus. This is a very substantial area, and it's something that I believe we ought to deal with. So far as the constitutional area is concerned, we have an unwritten constitution, it has worked overall so far. A particular instance of a rogue and irresponsible

prime minister or not to be a reason to scrap it all if you actually consider. We haven't in over a hundred years managed to get the House of Lords correct since the Parliament Act of 1911. To be madness, to post-Brexit, to have another referendum on this. You're looking at constitutional chaos of a cracker toan level. let me join the debate here and see if we can tee up some questions that are top of mind to our listeners tuning into this conversation. And, Polly, let me come to you first. You're a journalist for The Guardian, so you are following the news closely. I think one of the reasons we're having this debate is because of one woman, a woman who we know well, who's living in California right now called Megan Markle, who has levied some pretty serious charges against this. particular family that for the moment is the source of your monarchy, the House of Windsor,

a charge of racism. To what extent, Polly, do you think that that's real? To what extent do you think that this institution may be more than simply being out of date, undemocratic, is in fact racist? I don't know about that. Who knows? None of us know, really. It's all hearsay and gossip. But I think what's true is that you really can't say they are dignified anymore. I mean, let's just think. I mean, let's look at Prince Andrew. Let's think of the whole Charles and Diana psychodrama and the tragedy of it at the end and how awful it was. And the excruciating embarrassment of Prince Charles and Camilla's Tampax tapes.

And then we think of Megan and Harry and their exposures and all of this and these rows. I mean, we have been drawn into the lurid soap opera, which is nothing to do with us, nothing to do with our constitution. I think it's belittling, I think it's infantilising, it reduces us to the level of kind of daytime TV watches. It's certainly not dignified

in the way that an elected president would be, and I think it's high town we got rid of them. It's not really because of their bad behaviour. I mean, they've always behaved badly in one way or another. They're bound to be. but it's just the whole charade what it does to us you know what it reduces us to it makes us serfs if they are the sovereign and we are the subjects we are subject to the absurdity of this extraordinarily ordinary family who had after all the highest education available to them

and the highest standards of everything available to them and ended up being so very little intellectually interested in anything and very, you know, beyond the sort of polo and corgis and things. And the idea that they should somehow be put on a pedestal, I think is belittling to us. Fascinating argument. Okay, Richard, come back on that and come back specifically on a point that, let's face it, one of the great drivers, whether it's real or imagined, One of the great drivers of our modern society is the concept of meritocracy, the concept that we should each be awarded and recognized according to our skills and abilities. And as Polly said, isn't this institution just in a sense the antithesis of that?

It is this hearkening back to a feudal past that really has no place in how we should be thinking about merit, excellence, accomplishment, and to go one step further, isn't the House of Windsor and its behavior demonstrably unmeritorious. I would certainly say that this is a difficult time for the House of Windsor, but then there are many precedents for this. It goes back a millennium, and if you look, for example, at the 1860s, after Albert's tragic death, Queen Victoria went into seclusion. That was a serious period for the monarchy.

In the 1930s, we had the abdication, and that was pretty seismic. It was exceptionally serious. Then, in the 1990s, it was a hellish period, a bad decade, and subsequently, I mean, there's been mentioned of Andrew and indeed of Harry and Megan. And the aspects that I draw from this, to be sure there are problems, so far as actually having a monarchy, let's be clear precisely what is being suggested, that it is in some way infantilising that it makes people feel suffs, feel that they were peasants or whatever.

Not at all. In fact, if you look worldwide, you'll find 26 monarchies of 43 countries. Is anyone suggesting that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, that these are ridiculous or silly countries which in fact are unable to come to terms of the modern world. Quite the contrary, they're the most egalist. If you look, for example, at the United Nations quotient of happiness, you'll find out of the ten countries, six are monarchies. So this clearly shows something. So far as the burden of otherwise of history, some of history is full of atrocities, some of history is full of glorious instances. It depends which you wish to take. But tradition, colour, ceremony, these are living things and,

If you look at the way people respond to Jubilee's weddings and the like, Hyundai, the Queen's funeral, I think, I hope we all agree, was done with great dignity and highly impressive and a tribute to someone who reigned for 70 years with a remarkable sense of service. This, I think, is at the heart of this. So, Polly, you both want to talk about the Constitution, and I want to do that, too. So let's shift to that. And I'll come to it this way with you, Pauley.

You know, around the world, we are seeing the rise of populism, including very unattractive, authoritarian brands of populism. In many cases, those brands and the people behind them are emerging in presidential systems, in systems where you have a executive that is, you know, tied into the legislative. legislature that is using and stoking populist anger and sentiment to pursue undemocratic means and objectives. So how does getting rid of the monarchy prevent or thwart, you know, this global impulse, this global risk towards authoritarianism and populism? And why, in fact, wouldn't keeping the monarchy, be an insurance policy, a check on power?

It has turned out not to be because it has no power. I mean, my argument is not that it's powerful. What we've seen is a strong taste of populism here with Boris Johnson, then with Liz Truss and completely crashed the market with the sort of lunacy populist agenda of cutting all taxes. and the monarchy able to do absolutely nothing. And I think that, you know, when you see populist presidents, well, that's the equivalent of electing a prime minister. And we elect our prime ministers,

and there's nothing to stop us electing as we have done, dangerously populist ones. But what we need is somebody who is the safeguard of the constitution. And the monarchy can't be that because they're not elected. Therefore, they can do nothing except. what the Prime Minister says, exactly what she just said, that when it came to preroging Parliament, the Queen had to do what the Prime Minister said. The Prime Minister said, do it. So she had to do it. She had no choice. But, Polly, I mean, again, I'm not a constitutional expert, but is that actually true?

I mean, here in Canada, we have a Governor General who's appointed by your sovereign, and they have what are called reserve powers, powers that exist outside of our written constitution, which they can evoke in times of crises and emergency. And they've done that historically in Canada, albeit it's rare, it's controversial, it's extra constitutional, extra parliamentary, but those reserve powers exist. Whether one particular monarch chooses to use them or not doesn't belie the argument that they are there. They could be used. Not really, not in any functional way. And once they are, that's the end of the monarchy. Because a monarchy, because a monarchy, unelected, they can't have any of those powers. So when there was a great crisis of her removing

gophelemen in Australia, and it was thought that the Queen, I mean I think she was wrongly advised, I don't think it was her acting herself out of any particular political instinct, but wrongly advised, it was very nearly the end of the monarchy and certainly very nearly, you know, has been an ingredient in moral countries perhaps wanting not to come. under the monarchy. I mean, what we're seeing is, as well, House of Lords, now 800 people, a very corrupt institution. So it's got all the flummery and the pomp and circumstances and the black rod and the ermine and all the rest of it, all the ridiculous opening of Parliament folder roll. And if that's what people like, fine, but they don't like the House of Lords. People

think the House of Lords should be reformed. And to do that, you really do have to unpick our whole constitution. And once you start a... I'm picking it. Then the sovereign becomes a part of that too, and a whole lot really needs to be dismantled and modernized. Hey, Monk podcast listeners, I wanted to let you know about our other weekly audio program. It's called Friday Focus. And hey, guess what? It comes out each and every Friday. It's half an hour long, and it provides you with a master class on international events, all the big issues and ideas shaping our world. We've got that for you each and every Friday here at the Monk Debates. Simply

access via our website, triplew monkdebates.com. Click on Friday Focus in the top right navigation. You'll get all the details or check out a sample of the program in the same podcast feed as the main Monk Debates podcast. I hope you'll join us for the next edition of the Friday Focus podcast. Now back to program. Richard, to come back to you on this same argument, you know, Polly's right, we recently had a crisis here in Canada in the last decade or so, very similar to the one that you recently had with Boris Johnson, where prime minister paroched parliament and the then-governor general, despite, you know, some pretty dubious circumstances around that prerogament, you know, there it went. It happened. And the prime minister, as in your case, avoided meeting the house,

avoided his government being defeated. Why isn't Polly right that these much vaunted reserve powers that we have invested supposedly in your sovereign and in their representatives across the Commonwealth? These are hoary old things from the past. They'll never be used precisely because society has moved on, precisely because there is a demand for democracy. And if a monarch or a governor general ever used any of those reserve powers, it would be the official end of their institution.

Well, so far as Boris Johnson's concerned, somewhat of a rogue, I have to say, he asked the Queen, and the Queen acted on his advice to parogue Parliament for five weeks. This was pivotal to the Brexit process. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this was unlawful. essentially the Queen did accede to Johnson's request, but she, so to speak, handed the issue to the court. And the court simply said that she had acted constitutionally on his advice. But you are right in a point you made earlier that still the reserve power used or not does reside with the sovereign. In theory, though I say Queen Anne 1708 was the last time that this was done.

I can't see, for example, what on earthy abolition of the monarchy has to do with those trust, the crash of the markets, and indeed the issue of the House of Lords. The House of Lords is not tied in some form to the monarchy as such. for the 110 or 12 years since the Parliament Act of 1911, there have been constant attempts to get to alter the power of the Lords, to some extent this has been done, and fair enough, it is the second largest body in the world after the Chinese National People's Consultative Congress, but I don't see that if the Lord's power would be altered,

I totally fail to see that that will affect the monarchy in any way, quite honestly. for all the fact that you get, as any family you do, you have some pretty appalling people, Andrews, one of them. The facts of the matter are that in, as you look towards the future, when King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla give way to King William and Queen Consort Catherine, and then subsequently you have their children, I think that this is an institution where it is broadly in safe hands. Polly would not perhaps agree, but the facts are that you, again, I come back to this, you don't have a single major political party wanting this. So, Polly, come back to this, that there's an element to this debate that's kind of like how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin.

We have the same issue here in Canada. There is a Republican movement, but it is in a minority. There does not seem to be a social consensus at this point. despite all the powerful arguments that you've deployed in this debate, Polly, that is pushing for meaningful change through either a political party or constitutional reform that would be required to de-finestrate Canada, Great Britain, Australia, you name the jurisdiction from its current monarchical trappings. You're certainly seeing across the Commonwealth, quite a lot of countries,

thinking that perhaps they would rather have their own president than have, you know, a distant monarch. There's nothing much to do with them. I think you're going to see those bonds between the monarchy and the Commonwealth. You're certainly going to see that lesson. I think it's been interesting to see how quite rapidly the popularity of the monarchy, the importance of the monarchy, has fallen in opinion polls here. I mean, now only 53% of 25 to 49. year olds back the monarchy. As for those under 25, they think it won't still be there in 25 years

time when they certainly will be. The bonds are loosening. I mean, who knows whether they'll really get round to it or not. It may take something else that requires a real constitutional convention and looking at our whole rotten old constitution from beginning to end every ingredient of it from its voting system to its ludicrous house of lords and all the rest of it. But, I mean, it's certainly on a downward trajectory. I mean, I couldn't predict when. But I do feel, and certainly people are fascinated all over the world, as Richard said, absolutely fascinated, as if they were watching a soap opera.

But they're also kind of giggling up their sleeve and astonished to say that they're watching in admiration to row between, you know, William and Harry. It's just, it's a kind of joke, jolly interesting, good gossip, but it doesn't make us respected as a country. I really don't think it does. So I think it's slowly on its way out. I wouldn't expect it to be there in a hundred years. Okay, Richard, come back to you, just a few final arguments I want to touch on before we go to closing statements. And let's talk about the soft power attributes of this institution, because it's a part of the argument that you've leaned into, Richard, not to abolish the monarchy, it's that it conveys, especially for Britain, part of a brand, a proposition.

And I guess we would all acknowledge that, but is Polly right that that brand under the House of Windsor has become tainted? And it's not tainted just in this instance. It's as Polly has suggested. There's an unfortunate history here. There's the tragedy around Princess Diana. There's there's the difficult to say the least public relationships that, you know, the current king has had with his then-Lady Camilla. It just all seems to be a bit of a joke, Richard. I mean, it's not, it's not, it's, and with the absence of Queen Elizabeth now departed, isn't it true, Richard, that's just something essential has been lost for this institution, and the people and characters that are left are not the ones you as a royalist would want to see carrying the banner forward?

Of course you've got individuals and you've got scandals, and certainly there is a positive industry which is linked to this. But suppose soft power is concerned that's serious. The Queen went brought 272 times, I think it was, when's fit up with her every time. Now, all these royal visits, occasionally one goes wrong, and there are howls of fury, because certain things weren't planned.

But nonetheless, what you get is the cultural business benefit when there'll be a royal visit to France soon, and that will be, I sure, a great success. But these visits, they are more coveted than visits by anybody else. it's to and from Britain and this would continue under King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla as it would

under William and Catherine one day at least I think so. The other reason I think that absolutely which we haven't managed to talk about is so significant with the charitable aspects of monarchy. You mentioned Diana and I agree there are deep deep problems if you look at the past

and indeed in the 1990s you wondered what was going to happen at the end of that decade and and a guardian, may I say, Polly, was talking about Betty Boothroyd as a potential president. If not entirely seriously, I think they had a feel that this might conceivably be the time when the monarchy was really shaking. But in fact, things smooth, things changed. And so far as the charitable aspects are concerned, Diana would not have been able to do the truly amazing charitable work she did with landmines, with reference to HIV AIDS sufferers, and reaching out quite literally for lepers, the homeless, the cancer, patients, if she wasn't royal.

This does seem to give individuals a cachet so that, for example, Prince Phillips' award scheme, 132 countries have benefited Charles' trust we must be mentioned to, because a million disadvantaged young people have suffered from it. And however, with the ups and downs of his personal life, which we all know about over the years, from a charitable point of view, I think he's done a very great deal. With reference to opinion polls, they do go up and down, you know. Of course, some of them aren't good for the royal family at the moment among the 18 to 20 pores. I saw Polly, you were very selective in some of your quotes regarding some people thought

monarchy wouldn't be there in 25 years. It will be, believe you, me. Let's go to closing statements. This has been a terrific debate. You've been tuning in today. our motion is be it resolved. It's time to abolish the British monarchy. Pauly Toinby, let's put a couple minutes on the show clock for you to wrap up with the key arguments and ideas that you want to leave our listeners with. I would say it's not dignity. It's an indignity to be

subjects and not to be citizens. I'd say it's not a dignity that we project abroad either. I think people look at us with fascination and they're rather fascinated by the idea of monarchy because it's so out of date and extraordinary. As for soft power, I think it more projects the idea that we're a bit soft-headed. It makes us Ruritanian. And the tragedy of Brexit, of course, has added to that sense that we are a mad little island spinning off on our own, full of fantasies and rituals and medieval,

fold the roles of one kind or another. I don't think it adds to our esteem were held in abroad, and I don't think it really helps our own self-esteem either. As for charity as a reason, I think, I mean, on the whole, I don't necessarily resent the amount of money that the Crown owns and is paid by the state, both, but there's no doubt that if you rolled all of that up together and gave it to charity, it would be an awful lot more than the royals actually managed to raise by their fundraising efforts. So I don't think charities are at all of a reason, particularly as we saw Prince Charles receiving a million pounds in a brown paper bag.

No, it was a Fortnomer Mason's bag from a potentate who wanted favours. Well, that's not very good way of raising money for charity, I don't think. As for tourism, well, more people visit Versailles than visit Windsor. I think places go on being magnificent, beautiful, even when they don't still have a monarchy inside the, and I'm quite sure we'll be perfectly capable of being a dignified and properly democratic country with the president of a dignified kind of our own choosing, not imposed on us by absurd accidents of birth. Thank you, Polly Toinby, for a masterful closing statement. Okay, Richard Fitzwilliam, we're going to give you the last word in today's debate.

Well, I would suggest that practically nobody bar a certain percentage who, are members or sympathetic to the Republican cause. And if you look at the Epsos-Mari poll, that was last May, maybe. It was something like 22%. It's always been around that sort of level. Sometimes it goes up. And indeed, one thing I would say,

I believe the future will be safe with William and Catherine. I think they've handled things wonderfully well. I think they're the most glamorous royal couple. in the world and I do think that that is significant. It's significant in an age where you have a fascination, I think we've all agreed with the British monarchy, but regarding the charitable aspect of it, you take something like the Prince's Trust or you take something that Diana did. I don't see how that could be duplicated simply by a sum of money that wasn't being paid. It isn't it's the, and it's individuals. Individuals have helped to cover.

out our monarchy over a millennium. They have included the Queen, whose service was truly amazing, and her father, George VI, who indeed, as our wartime head of state, did the State good service, to quote from Shakespeare. There's nothing ephemeral about a reign such as the queen, and there's nothing ephemeral about an institution that's lasted a millennia, and rather like parliamentarians guard their privileges. So you have traditions that people value, that people indeed really care for. And we haven't mentioned the coronation. We should.

We're the last European country to have one. But I'm looking forward to it. And I'm sure that so many millions in Britain and in the Commonwealth are too. Thank you. Richard Fritz William. You've been listening to our debate today. Be it resolved. It's time to abolish.

the British monarchy. Polly, Richard, thank you so much for coming on the program, sharing your analysis and insights. We did exactly what I hoped we'd do with this debate. It was a great combination of the serious and substantive, along with a little bit of the fun and absurd. So thanks for playing along with us, and thanks for your time today. Thanks very much. Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Polly Toinby and Richard Fitzwilliam. They certainly give us a lot to think about. Love your reaction and feedback on today's debate. Please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Also a reminder that you can listen to on this podcast feed a sample of our regular Friday Current Affairs podcast creatively called Friday Focus. If you'd like to

access full-length editions of each and every Friday Focus episode, please consider becoming a monk donor for as little as $25 a year or 50 cents an episode. You can get full-length editions of Friday Focus and keep abreast of all the latest global and current events delivered to you in scintillating audio by the Monk Debates team. Do that right now on our website, triple-W Monk Debates.com. Look for Friday Focus in the top right navigation. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate one conversation at a time.

The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Adam Karsh. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.