The British monarchy should be abolished.

Hi, I look forward to a good debate."The idea of having a monarch has always been ludicrous and is even more so in the modern time." This is actually less true than it sounds. Throughout history there have been a lot more successful and stable empires than you will find democracies. Even the Athenian democracy, the one that started it all, was notoriously corrupt. [1]Under the Persian Empire, slavery was illegal. In 1335, the king of Sweden banned slavery [2]. Democracies like the Romans had slaves while the Persians existed [3]. The United States had slaves until the civil war broke out [4]."The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch."The Queen of England isn't some kind of dictator. It's become more symbolic than anything. All laws go through Parliament and the Queen doesn't have the authority to set her own laws. Parliament has been superior to the monarch since King Charles II. After the "Glorious Revolution of 1688, the supremacy of parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority." [5]The United States of America separated partly because they were not being given representation in Parliament. [6]"Giving extra rights and privileges to a person based on the family in to which they were born is a stupid, archaic idea."I would like pro to elaborate on this claim and explain what extra rights he is referring to. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens"Monarchy runs contrary to this concept of being 'equal in dignity and rights', because the Royal Family has more from birth." I'm wondering if Pro is also against inheritance. Using this logic, anybody that is born with more money than somebody else should have it all taken away because it goes against what the United Nations said. I'd also like Pro to elaborate on his claim that they have more from birth. What does the royal family have that an average citizen does not have access to? Are they given crashed UFOs as souvenirs? No wait, they probably get free food at restaurants, they don't? I'm now wondering what they get that they haven't earned. Pro is probably now wondering how the family has earned anything. When King George III, yes the guy that lost the USA, went into a lot of debt, he made a deal with the Parliament. He handed over all of the profits from his land for a fixed salary. Parliament accepted the deal figuring that it would pay off in the long term. Every monarch since King George III has handed over the profits from the plot of land. The land still belongs to the royal family, it's just that the money is given to the Parliament. While it currently costs £40,000,000 per year to cater for the royal family, Parliament makes £200,000,000 per year off of the royal family. Subtracting the costs of the family from the profits, the British government gains £160,000,000 per off of this family. That's not even close to what the royal family actually makes for the government. Every year, people from all over the world (especially from USA) to see the castles, the guards, and all of the other cool monarchy things. The net gain from tourism results in an extra £7,000,000,000 is revenue. Don't think that people would be coming to see a crumbling unkept castle, nobody goes to France to see those. [7]If you were donating £7.16B every year to the government, you would probably get preferential treatment too. "I find the idea that a one year old baby who has not had any great achievements or made a large positive difference to lives should be more important than me. From birth"Some people are more important than others. Get used to it. As long as your vote counts the same, and you have the opportunity to succeed in life, what else could you want? Pure equality is never possible unless you live in a pure communist society, which has never existed. In conclusion, the monarchy should stay as it is because parliament makes a tonne of money from them, and it would be a waste of time because the monarch is limited to ceremonies and diplomatic stuff. [1] http://youtu.be...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...[4] http://www.britannica.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://www.u-s-history.com...[7]