The Royal Family are an asset to the UK

This is my first debate on this website (although I have debated in school where the style was slightly different) but I will try my best. Firstly a few definitions which I hope you will agree on, then we can get started. Asset: A useful or valuable thing, person, or quality. Benefit: An advantage or profit gained from something. May be social, political or economical. Democracy: A form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Monarchy: A form of government with a sovereign head of state eg. a King or Queen. The Royal Family refers to the current Windsor family, with Queen Elizabeth II at the head. If there are any other terms you wish to define or clarify please state them in your response. Main arguments against the Royal Family being an asset to the UK: 1) The UK calls itself a democracy. This means that every adult citizen (besides those in prison or mentally disabled) can vote to elect the people it wants to represent themselves. This is done by means of an elected parliament. To have a Royal Family having powers by hereditary birthright undermines this. We did not vote for them to be there, and we have no say over whether we still want them there. 2) The Monarchy is outdated and no longer necessary. Britain no longer has an empire nor holds many of the values it had in place when the monarch was first instated. Times have changed and we need to move with this. An example of this is in the Royal Family where men have priority to the throne over female siblings. In the UK today, men and women are equal in almost all aspects of life, and they should be in politics too. 3) Britain is a multi-cultural society and that is not represented in the Royal Family. There has never been an ethnic minority in the Royal Family and I dare say it's unlikely we will see one in the near future. There have also been instances of racism in the Royal Family, to mention a couple a) Prince Harry dressing up as a Nazi for a party, which was meant as a joke but caused public outcry. b) Prince Philip on his China state visit in 1986 saying "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed". This is likely to offend many British citizens and is simply not acceptable, no matter if it was meant light-heartedly or not. 4) The Royal Family cost billions each year, which is funded by taxpayers. Some claim that they give this back in what we earn from their tourism. However, there is little evidence for this at all and Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. There is some speculation that even if the Royal Family were no longer in power, the tourism would still be there from the history they have given us. 5) Because of some of the terrible acts Britain committed during the British Empire (slave trade, slaughtering Indian civilians), it is offensive to the residents of those countries to have the Queen as their head of state. We do not need the commonwealth for trade as have our main exports partners in the Eurozone and United States which are mainly political alliances formed by bonds between our Prime Ministers - the Royal Family is not needed for that. Sources: . http://www.republic.org.uk... I look forward to your response.