The monarchy won comfortably, but the room’s case for keeping it was often less a defence of royalty than a worry about the alternative. The most-respected No argument asked whether voters wanted “to hold votes for a President who can lie to us”; another boiled the choice down to “Better the devil you know”.
The strongest No voices pictured an elected president as a new political prize, with all the campaigning and ambition that might bring. One warned of “another layer of governance”; another’s three-word caution, “President Boris Johnson”, earned more respect than any other argument on the page.
Yes voters made a different case: not for a more powerful president, but for an elected check on power. One argued that “we don't have a head of state who has any power over the prime minister”; another pointed to the monarch’s consent being needed for bills and argued that it “is regularly used” to shield the royals from laws. Those cases had less support from the floor than the fear that elections would politicise the office.
The debate often passed at cross purposes: No voices defended a non-partisan figurehead, while Yes voices questioned whether an unelected figurehead could meaningfully check a government. Even some reluctant No voters voiced unease with the royal family, but remained unconvinced that a presidency was the remedy.
In this room, uncertainty about the successor weighed more heavily than dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
63 Opinions
The monarchy and the active role it plays in active life would be much missed. Do we really want to become a republic and hold votes for a President who can lie to us. President would be more than a figurehead role. And add another layer of governance at a time when most want to reduce the administrative burdens
The only real argument against our King is financial. But a President wouldn't save any money as opposed to our Monarch. They would still want the big house etc. Our King has been trained for the role for a lifetime. He has worldwide respect as a Head of State. Unlike any politician who would would want the role who would be untrained and likely corrupt He is the Head of the Armed forces and so we can't have any Trump like abuse of the army. Any change would be for the worse
I would have said no as I was a monarchist until the queen died. Now we have a muslim king that's betrayed his people for foreign invaders with medieval superstitious backwards ideology that if fundamentally incompatible with western values
Better the devil you know than the one that's "elected"
I'm not sure the UK could be trusted to pick a decent President if election trends over the last few years are anything to go by! Remember "I voted for Boris cos he's funny?" Since it would only be a titular role, with our parliamentary system, can you imagine the list of likely, unsuitsable candidates? And Brits would probably choose the most unsuitable, who would then move into the Place & live the high life! A tongue in cheek view from me! But be careful what you wish for!
Pro Palestinians will vote in a mullah ! No thanks
A reluctant no, based only on the fact that I shudder to imagine who we'd elect as president. I do also think, though, that the royal family's level of funding should be dramatically reduced.
The Royal Family is a mainstay of our history. That's what makes the country's British Culture. I don't want to see another layer political wrangling and uselessness.
I am not a monarchist but don't see a presidency as a better solution. A surefire why to hit political stalemate.
God no. Who would have swapped QEII for any politician? President Blair or President Starmer anyone? Constitutional monarchy is a remarkably stable system of Govt around the World. These states often have less Govt corruption as well. The important point is the power denied to politicians. Its not like a presidency where one person has all the say. The PM can be enormously powerful and popular, but will still have a BOSS to answer to .. and THAT is the important point