The British monarchy should be abolished.

"the Prime Minister would become the new Head of State." I shall indeed correct you. In the parliamentary system of Government, the Head of Government and Head of State are normally separate offices [1]. Germany, for example, has the Federal Chancellor (Head of Government) and the Federal President (Head of State). If the Monarchy was removed, the Queen's replacement would likely be a citizen elected by the people, accountable to the people, serving for a fixed term (the arrangements would be debated in Parliament). I'd rather live in a monarchy with a benevolent ruler than a republic with immoral values. I accept that there have been good monarchies and bad republics. However, there have also been bad monarchies and good republics. Citing examples of historical monarchies with good values is irrelevant to the UK's Monarchy: the King of Sweden may have abolished slavery, but has Queen Elizabeth II? North Korea has a dictator, and it's actually becoming more stable. Regarding where pro mentioned that monarchies do not unite, I'd like it to be noticed that a strong leader can definitely unify a nation. North Korea might be becoming more stable, yet your source still lists it as the 23rd worst country. Even though the Kim family is not a Royal house, it may as well be because the right to rule North Korea is inherited, similarly to Monarchy, and I maintain that it is bad. Would you like to live in North Korea? A strong leader need not be Royal. Scotland, Catalonia and Flanders's Separatist Movements You shall find a link to an article on European Separatist Movements at [2] "Frankly, the Queen has been much more sparing with her ability to declare war than the Prime Minister's have been". I refer to my argument from the second round: "It is not just the Queen who may exercise Royal Prerogative powers: HM Government may use them on her behalf. This gives a whole load of powers to the Government which they may use without the approval of parliament". As that states, the Prime Minister (who heads HM Government) derives his power to declare war through the Crown. If the Monarchy did not exist, then the Prime Minister would not be able to do this. The Monarchy makes the British Prime Minister much more powerful than he should be. The only real problem I see with Royal Prerogative is the crown immunity. The monarch should be accountable for their actions. How do you propose that the Monarch is held to account? The axiom of Monarchy is that the Monarch cannot be removed from office, no matter what they do. Elected politicians can be held to account in event of wrongdoing by the public not voting for them again. Britain did not elect the Queen. She has no limit on her reign. Monarchs cannot be removed from the throne. Therefore, how is it possible to hold the Monarch to account without undermining the basic principles of what Monarchy is? I have an easy solution: abolish the Monarchy. The children of all world leaders are born with more rights than other children. If the UN isn't going to care about Sasha and Malia Obama having the ability to go a fancy private school on taxpayer money, they shouldn't care about what the leaders of the UK do. Sasha and Malia Obama are citizens of the United States. They have no more rights than ordinary American children. There is a big difference between a "Right" and an "Ability". For example, I have the right to become a professional footballer. There is absolutely no legal obstacle to my doing so, therefore I have the right to. However, I am not very good at football so I do not have the ability to do so. All American children have the right to go to a fancy private school because there is no legislation which prevents term from doing so. Sasha and Malia are fortunate that their father is paid a good salary and that they have lots of money. That money gives them the ability to go to a fancy private school. Children from poorer families can't afford to pay the school fees, so they don't have the ability to go, but they have just as much right to as the Obamas. Thus, the UN should care about the extra rights given to the Royals. Pro failed to tell me how the obtained money even after stating "I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question". I said "I like to enter debated with a full knowledge of the topic in question" in response to your words "Pro is probably now wondering how the family has earned anything". "Wondering" made it seem like I didn't have such knowledge of the Royals. I did not intend to make any point here. I honestly have nothing to say about that. That's pretty messed up. I am very glad that you agree with me that this is wrong. However, higher restrictions shall be difficult to put in place because all Government Ministers and MPs have to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen [3]. Parliament shall have a hard time trying to impose any restrictions upon the Royals (including the changes to the Royal Prerogative powers which you previously advocated) because they all have to swear their allegiance to the Queen. This fact worries me because it shall be very difficult for parliament to legislate for a referendum on the Monarchy, when the time comes... That may be true, but the Louvre is not used as a palace anymore. Exactly, it isn't a crumbling old castle which nobody wants to visit. The French have transformed it in to an excellent tourist attraction, and the same could be done with Royal palaces in the UK. I'm feel that Buckingham Palace Museum would give the Louvre a great run for its money! Obama could personally fly to Nigeria to fight the Ebola outbreak and would still be criticized about it. I understand your point but he's a bad example. Obama is the USA's Head of State. The Queen is the UK's. I agree that Obama would be met with criticism whatever he did. This is because he is a President, not a King, and may be held to account. Well what have you contributed to the world aside from being born? I do not claim to be more important than George. I claim to be as important as him, as I have not made a great contribution to the world. I am just as important as that baby, as we both haven't contributed to the world. Hawking and Mandela, however, have. Mandela got to be South Africa's Head of State. Why shouldn't Hawking be Britain's? Because an archaic system of Monarchy prevents those who achieve in life from getting the chance to become Head of State, in favour of the Windsors, who have succeeded in being born. Well you always have the possibility of becoming the Prime Minister. You are missing the point. A child born in to this country should have the opportunity to become anything they wish, should they work hard for it. A professional footballer. A scientist. The Head of Government. Even Head of State. Monarchy prevents them from becoming the Head of State, and that is wrong. Finally, I think that Parliament has more important things to be doing than worry that the 88 year old lady will try to take back absolute control. I do not believe that the Queen is going to take absolute control of the country. My argument is that the Queen shouldn't be there as Head of State when she has done no work to get there. She holds this position based on who her parents were, and I believe that deciding who holds the highest office in a country based on that is unacceptable. In conclusion, the British Monarchy should be abolished because it rewards a select few for Being Born, makes the UK look very old fashioned, gives Sovereignty to the Queen instead of the British People, deprives ordnary people of the right to become Head of State, costs the UK Taxpayer much more than it is worth and is not representative of the UK's progressive society. Thank you for a good debate! [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...; [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_Kingdom)