The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

Perhaps you did not understand my first point in Round One, so I shall explain it again. The Crown Estates gives all of its surplus to the treasury (ï¿½256million), in return the treasury gives the royal family what it needs (ï¿½40million), so the taxpayers are in profit by ï¿½210million. Why you then failed to take this into account when reiterating your point again is not clear. I disproved your view that the monarchy is costing the taxpayers money, so to try and make the same claim again isn't getting you anywhere. You second point from Round Two is interesting, as believe it or not that supports my point. The UK is not in the top 4 tourist destinations, it does not have constant nice weather, it does not have beaches and clear blue waters, it also does not have a range of geophysical zones ranging from deserts to rainforests (all of which are recognised as important factors for tourism). What it does have is the worlds most famous, and most photographed monarchy. To take the monarchy out of the equation is going to push us further down the list, and lose us money. How can you claim in your first point that the monarchy helps create tourism income, then try and claim in your second point that without them we wouldn't lose money? It is not logical. Then your third point- the royal wedding is going to cost the taxpayers ï¿½50-ï¿½100million. Well seeing as I have already proved the UK taxpayer is making over ï¿½200million profit from the Crown Estates alone, that still leaves a profit of ï¿½100million. That does not take into account the income generated from the sales boost the royal wedding will have, and the increase in tourism it will have, all of which provides even more income. To put it simply- we have more chance of the Olympics causing the taxpayers a loss in money than we have in the royal wedding causing a loss in money. Are you calling for the Olympics to be moved elsewhere? Of course not. You tried to work around my third point of the royals not being out of place in British society, by using the semantics of 'modern British society'. But again, my third point in Round One disproved this, as all the surveys I supplied were taken in MODERN Britain, which means that modern Britain likes, wants, and can relate to the monarchy. So to restate this same point is still getting you nowhere. It is also clear that you do not realise that the idea of a Republic is far older than even Christianity, so that is hardly modern itself. In fact, the system of a Constitutional Monarchy is a newer concept than that of a Republic. So if we want to use semantics we can say our system is more modern than adopting a Republic. The monarchy's duties are performed by government are they? So being an ambassador of trade for Britain is handled by a government official? Or being the head of the Church of England is handled by a government official? My point is simple. Government and the Monarchy separated hundreds of years ago, they have had different roles since then. To try and claim that the current monarchy is suppose to have the roles of a far distant monarchy is nonsensical. Perhaps you should remove yourself from the idea of an absolute monarchy, and bring yourself to the reality of our monarchy. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no real power, but he is seen as important. The head of Oxfam has no real power, but they are seen as important. Ghandi, Mother Teressa, Albert Einstein, the list goes on. You're essentially saying that importance only comes with power, which goes against your attempt to compare a homeless man on the street with the Queen. My family history stretches back hundreds of years, in fact, it stretches back hundreds of thousands of years, as does yours. Does that mean we should be exiled? It is very clear that your argument is based around resentment of wealth, especially that of passing wealth on to children. Hate to break it to you, but thousands of millionaires and billionaires do that every year, should we abolish inheritance full stop? Of course not. Seeing as the Queen cannot vote, and is impartial on political matters, she is actually less of a threat to the people of the UK than a multi-millionaire such as Lord Ashcroft, who actively pumped millions into the Conservative Party in the run up to the 2010 election. The influence that his wealth brings, without the checks and balances that the monarchy has, is far more immoral than that of the Queen. It is also very clear that I have already disproved your three points, so no matter how much you retype them, it isn't going to make them true.