European Constitutional Monarchies Ought to be Dissolved

Round 3RebuttalsI would like to start off by mentioning the journalist my opponent quoted. Hamilton Nolan can also be quoted as saying this about the monarchy, (it should be noted that he is talking about all members of the monarchy here, including the elderly Queen and the baby Prince George): "Confiscate their wealth, sell off their possessions, lock them up for theft, and strike all appropriations for the Royal Family from the public budget. Auction off the crown jewels, use the money to buy gasoline, and burn the queen's home to ground during a grand national celebration." [1]Apparently, Hamilton Nolan is an advocate of extreme measures, such as arson, against people he disagrees with, no matter how elderly they may be. I would question how far we should follow the advice of somebody who holds such extreme views. Despite this, Hamilton Nolan is also an American. This does not, in itself, mean that he is not entitled to his own opinion about the monarchy, but it does mean that his views will be subject to American ideals, one of those ideals being anti-monarchic. There is a good chance that he would not, on principal, understand the pride that some British people (some not all) have in their monarchy. Thus, the accuracy of his views on the matter are, at the best, questionable. Anyhow, onto my opponents argument, but first I would like to start with a counter quote:[2]"Tourists spend A LOT of cash on Great Britain each and every year! Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is. Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren't plastic. Of course they could visit France & Germany who have also had monarchs, but that's exactly why the don't. They HAD monarchs where as the UK HAS monarchs living today in their real castles. The Royal Crests you see across London, on Royal Palaces, Government Departments and even the Guardsmen uniforms are all REAL and embody [the] living and breathing Queen of today."This quote explains why getting rid of the Royal Family would affect the British tourist industry. If we did not have a REAL monarchy, then what would set us apart from France and Germany, who also HAD a monarchy, but do not any more. I would like to point out a very large flaw in one of my opponents arguments:'For one, how can my opponent possibly know that less tourists will be drawn to the tourist destination if there is no longer a royal family?'I do not claim to know for certain if less tourists will be drawn to monarchical tourist destinations if the royal family is dissolved. However, my opponent also can not know whether or not the dissolution of the monarchy would result in a fall in tourism. However, realistically, it is likely as, despite what my opponent claims when he asserts that there is no connection between a monarchical tourist destination and the royal family itself (a questionable claim that baffles me), the presence of an actual royal family in Britain is likely to incite more people, whom may not have a monarchy in their country, to wish to travel to Britain. This may be due to the fact that the monarchical tourist destinations are, in fact, still used by the Royal Family in some cases (such as the palaces), or it may be due to the fact that there is a slight chance of actually seeing a member of the royal family, which is an opportunity to see the culmination of the British monarchical history which is represented in our Royal Family. After all, the Queen is related to all those Kings and Queens that you read about in the History books.Let's look at my opponents graph (C for him B for us) again: Now, my opponent claims that only two of these countries have a monarchy. This is incorrect. Spain, also has a monarchy, not just UK and Australia, and you can see that Spain has the second highest tourist income in billions of dollars, it is only beaten by the USA, which is a considerably larger country and therefore has a lot more tourist destinations in general, so is likelier to receive a larger income in terms of tourism. This graph does not actually prove anything, however, as there are many factors which may determine the income of a country via tourism, including average cost of attractions and number of attractions, we can not use this graph to assume the popularity of individual attractions, such as monarchical ones, so this does not help our debate a great deal.Role in SocietyMy opponent claims that the monarchy costs the British taxpayer $50 Million, I think as we're talking about the UK we should deal with the British monetary system. Therefore, my opponents new figure on how much the monarchy costs the British yearly is: £30,942,988. He claims that this is largely for travel, which we can see from this graph: is an incorrect claim. When dealing with a larger sum of money than is suggested (£33.3 million) total cost for travel is only £4.5 million. A large amount of the money is actually for property maintenance, payroll and other staff costs. In reality, this sum of money would be necessary with, or without, a monarchy as the payroll would mostly be used to pay the staff who actually maintain the palaces etc. Some staff could be gotten rid of, such as cooks etc. However this would not reduce the payroll costs by a great amount. Thus, around £28.6 million would still have to be paid if the UK dissolved the monarchy, making the actual cost of the monarchy £4.7 million, or $7.5 Million. Thus, if the dissolution of the monarchy saw a £4.7 million loss in the tourist industry, then the UK would have lost, not only a great part of their cultural heritage, but also, they would have lost out economically as well.My opponent also asserts thus:'I will acknowledge that the royal family can do some good, through the work of charity and what not. However, I would like to ask my opponent if they could not do so without getting the lofty titles of Queen, or Prince, or Duke, etc.'If I were to offer my support to a charity, and to clarify I do not have any titles or peerages and I am most certainly not a celebrity, then I may be able to raise a few pounds. However, when the Queen offers her support to a charity, just by the virtue of her being Queen, thousands more follow her lead and wish to support the charity that she represents, that is how she is able to help raise £1.2 Billion for a charity. I'm afraid, no, if she was not a Queen, she could not do anywhere near as much good in terms of charity work. In a perfect world this would not be the case, but the world is not perfect, thus it is the case.Conclusion:In this debate I have shown that the monarchy are a great source of tourism for Britain, as well as being a source of pride for many monarchical countries. Their position as role models to the rest of their country allows them to make great achievements in the name of charity and they can cost as little as £4.7 million a year. They are also great representatives of national culture and heritage, and are generally very popular within the country themselves. [3]'According to polling data from Ipsos Mori, support for a republic was 18% in 1969, 18% in 1993, 19% in 2002 and 18% last year. Three-quarters of the population want Britain to remain a monarchy.' So what would be the point in destroying an institution which is incredibly popular in its country, to satisfy the whims of those who often don't even live in monarchical countries themselves(for example, Hamilton Nolan).Support the peoples choice. Vote con!P.S. Thank you to pro for an enjoyable, intellectual debate!Sources:[1]http://gawker.com...[2]http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com...[3]http://www.bbc.co.uk...