The British monarchy should be abolished.

Thank you, I also look forward to a good debate. Just to note, even though it isn't directly relevant to the debate, I would like to pick up on your usage of "The Queen of England". The Queen concerned here is the Queen of the United Kingdom (to use her shorter name). There hasn't been a Queen of England since the 1st of May 1707. I'm Scottish, and would like to note that there is more to Britain than England. Before I respond to your points, I would like to add another to the debate, which is that the Head of State is meant to represent the people of a country at home and overseas. Monarchy poses a problem to this. The Windsors are an upper-class, white family. How can this possibly be representative of British society, when people of British nationality now have all sorts of ethnic backgrounds? Are most people in Britain posh and wealthy? Short answer: no. The Windsor family is not by any means representative of British society. In response to your point about how Republics had slaves in the past, I remind you that correlation doesn't imply causation. Please explain why the USA's being a Republic as opposed to a Monarchy meant it had slaves. I could say that 8 of the top 10 largest world economies are Republics, but that wouldn't be a valid argument because their not having a monarchy isn't the cause of it. To pick up on the word "stable", let it be known that Monarchies do not unite and stabilise countries. In fact, the three most active separatist movements in Europe are in countries with monarchies: Scotland in the UK, Catalonia in Spain and Flanders in Belgium. "The people of a state should hold popular sovereignty of it and be citizens of the state, not subjects of the monarch." I am very aware that the Queen is not a dictator - the UK has a system of constitutional monarchy. However, constitutional monarchy doesn't take away from the fact that British people are subjects of the Queen and not citizens. Ironically, even though the UK has a system of constitutional monarchy, there isn't actually a constitution. The Crown has strong powers called Royal Prerogative powers which the Queen may use as she pleases [1]. It is that if she did something like refuse to give a bill Royal Assent then there would likely be a revolution, but then what is the point in giving her the power at all? 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. "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". No. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights states that all are born "equal in dignity and rights". Never does it mention wealth. What the Royal Family has more from birth that most people don't is being at the front of the line of succession to the Throne. A normal person in the UK, no matter how rich or successful they are in life, may never be Head of State of the United Kingdom because that position is taken by a Royal. "Pro is probably now wondering how the family has earned anything". I know exactly how the Royal Family has obtained money. I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question. I heavily object to your statement that the monarchy costs "40,000,000 per year to maintain. A report published by the campaign group Republic estimates that this figure is actually "299,400,000, roughly 9 times greater than the figure published by the Royal Household [2]. The cost of round-the-clock security costs "102,000,000 , a bill picked up by the Metropolitan Police. However, this is just an estimate by the Republic group. The public is actually unable to find out for sure because the Royals are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, resulting in the Monarchy being a very secretive institution which is very difficult to hold to account. Prince William and Kate recently had their Kensington apartment refurbished at a cost of around "4,000,000 to the taxpayer [3]. Surely, if they are trying to "represent British values", they could try and live in a more normal home. The average wage in the UK is "26,500 (almost 44,500 USD), so most people can't quite afford to live in such luxury. I think it is all very well having a nice official residence for the Head of State, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to support their entire family. Would the American people tolerate it if President Obama's cousin's son was given a lovely $6,000,000? I think not. Even if the monarchy cost absolutely nothing, I would still not support it because the entire principle of it is wrong. Tourism: As to tourism, research shows that tourists come to Britain for the excellent museums, incredible natural scenery and good shopping opportunities, not because there is a Monarchy [4]. People from all over the world might come to London to see Buckingham Palace. They do not, however, go in and have a cup of tea and a chat with the Queen. I'm glad that you mentioned France. Indeed, people don't go to France to see crumbling castles. That is because the residences of the French Royals have not been left to the wind since the revolution. The Louvre, the palace in which the French Royals lived, in 2012 saw 8,000,000 visitors through its doors [5]. In stark contrast to this, Buckingham Palace saw a mere 413,000 visitors through its doors [6]. "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?" I fully accept that some people are more important than others. People like Nelson Mandela and Stephen Hawking certainly were/are, what with their important achievements and contributions to the world. I ask, what has this baby contributed to the world to make it important? Absolutely nothing, it has been born. I accept that people are more important than me, but only when they should be. Moving on to the opportunity to succeed in life, I again repeat: this Baby is going to be the Head of State one day. Why should the thousands of other babies in this country one day not have that chance of success in life? Monarchy excludes ordinary people from having the chance to represent their country as Head of State, and this is wrong. In conclusion, the monarchy should go because it is not representative of the British people, is allowed to be secretive and unaccountable to the British people, isn't so good for tourism as everybody believes and excludes all but a select few from having the opportunity to become Head of State. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://republic.org.uk... [3] - http://www.bbc.co.uk... [4] - http://www.visitbritain.org... [5] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [6] - http://www.royalcollection.org.uk...