Should the monarchy be abolished?

Commonwealth countries shouldn't have a British monarch as their head of state

Question: Should the monarchy be abolished?
Position‹4 of 4: Commonwealth countries should become republics or have their own monarchy
Argument: Commonwealth countries shouldn't have a British monarch as their head of state

It is inappropriate that countries with a history of colonisation should have a British monarch as their head of state.

The argument

Whether or not a constitutional monarchy is a good idea, this argument holds, ex-British colonies should not have the British monarch as their head of state. The question of the institution is set aside deliberately: the objection is not to monarchy but to a particular monarch, belonging to a particular other country. The justification for a shared head of state would have to be a continuing relationship, and the argument's claim is that no such relationship remains. Any ties to the old motherland have long gone, despite many citizens having roots generations back in Britain — ancestry is not the same as a present-day common interest, and it cannot by itself establish why the British monarch should hold the highest office in another state. Britain's lack of loyalty to its Commonwealth partners has been demonstrated many times. When Britain joined the then European common market in the early 1970s, it immediately took on other European nations as preferred trading partners, which caused significant damage to the economies of the Commonwealth nations — seemingly without a second thought. Faced with a choice between its new European arrangements and the countries that shared its head of state, Britain chose the former and imposed the cost on the latter. The point is made lightly but tellingly in another register. Even in sport, the alleged royal family of Australia or New Zealand do not pretend to support those teams when they play against a UK team. Where loyalties are on display with nothing at stake, the direction they run in is clear. There are therefore no special ties between the UK and the Commonwealth which would suggest those nations should have a monarch from the other side of the world.

Context

The British monarch is also head of state for 15 countries outside of the UK, the largest of which are Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Premises

[P1]A shared head of state is only justified when there are genuine, ongoing ties of loyalty and mutual interest between the countries involved. [P2] Britain has repeatedly shown it does not prioritise its Commonwealth partners, as seen when it joined the European common market and shifted preferential trade to Europe at the Commonwealth's expense. [P3] Even symbolically, the British royal family shows no special allegiance to Commonwealth nations such as Australia or New Zealand. [C] Therefore, Commonwealth countries should not retain the British monarch as their head of state and should become republics or establish their own monarchy.

Counter-arguments

Each Commonwealth realm keeps the shared crown by its own constitutional choice and can end it unilaterally, as Barbados and others have done — so the monarch is already *their* head of state under their own law, not an imposition from abroad. The grievance about Britain joining the European common market is a historical trade dispute that has no bearing on the head-of-state question, and whether royals cheer for a cricket team is a frivolous test of a constitutional arrangement. Realms that retain the monarchy generally do so for continuity and a politically neutral head of state, not for sentimental ties to Britain.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] A shared head of state in the realms rests on each country's own law and consent, not on ongoing ties of loyalty, so the absence of such ties does not make the arrangement illegitimate. [Rejecting P3] Symbolic gestures like sporting allegiance are irrelevant to the constitutional case for or against retaining the monarch.