European Constitutional Monarchies Ought to be Dissolved

Round 2I, too, would like to show my appreciation to my opponent for challenging me to this debate - it is greatly... appreciated. I'm sure we can fit some fun into what I hope shall be an eye-opening and interesting debate.Economic benefits of the MonarchyIt is integral to my side of this debate to stress that the monarchy is not, as is often claimed, a cause of net economic loss. I hope my opponent will not mind if I reference his graph (A). Interestingly, the graph suggests that in 2013/2014 the royal family cost the British Taxpayer the equivalent of 56 pence per person. This is, in fact, very close to the estimate that I have in a separate source [1] which suggests 53 pence per British person between 2012/2013. So we can assume that, currently, the royal family costs around 50-60 pence per person every year. This totals out at around £33.3 million a year (if using the 53 pence estimate). Admittedly, this is more money than I have in my bank account, but what if we factor in how much the presence of a royal family in the UK actually brings in via the tourist industry? Interestingly, my source [2] suggests that the tourism brought in by the royal family more than makes up for their expenses. Here is a direct quote:"The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations."So if we detract £33.3 million from £500 million, we get £467 million, a sizable sum leftover! To address my opponents question as to whether or not I think a 'reform' of the British royal family is worth it, my answer is no. Let them keep the money flooding in!Now I'm going to address an argument that I know will rear it's ugly head at some point, and can also only be deemed to be a matter of eternal debate. Would tourists keep visiting the Palaces, Tower of London and other monarchy-associated sites even if the royal family themselves had been dissolved? The answer to this question is maybe, but nowhere near as many. Having said that, why should the UK take the risk anyway, as we have proved that the Royal Family more than make up for themselves economically!Now, this is a question of European Constitutional Monarchies, as my opponent has stated, so let's look at his graph too! Sorry about the use of your own sources against you, pro, but I feel the need to analyze all the available data! Now, it appears that, in some places, the monarchy is incredibly costly per person. A good example of this is Luxembourg's $22.20 per person. That is an incredible amount at face value. However, if you consider the fact that Luxembourg has the second highest GDP of any other country in the world [2] and the average citizen of Luxembourg earns twice the average salary of an American citizen, as well as its relatively small population size, perhaps we can explain that inflated value. It is noticeable that Spain only spends $0.23 per capita, which is lower than non-monarchic Germany's $0.46. This suggests that the difference per capita is not due to the status of the country as a monarchic or non-monarchic country, but more to do with the actions of the individuals who actually rule it. When it comes down to trust, I'd rather give my pin number to Queen Elizabeth II than this guy: Anyway, that's enough talk of economics, let's move on!Role in SocietyAlas, I thought we had finished with talk of economics, but it was not to be so! A fleeting mention shall suffice, however, to say that as I have proved that the royal family does not, in fact, cost a huge amount more than it brings in, we do not have to worry about any obscene vet bills or, indeed, any dying dogs (cats, or other animals) in the foreseeable future. In other words, the traditions of the royal family (in Britain at least) are not harming anybody (either physically, mentally, or economically) in their upkeep, so pro's argument that we should dispense with them due to the logic that we should put 'a dying dog down.' is negated, as there is no dying dog. In fact, the situation would be more akin to the putting down of a healthy sheepdog, simply because the sheep all ran away and therefore the sheepdog no longer has to perform the same duties as it used to, but is still perfectly able to run across the fields and participate as a good family pet! Such an action would simply be a ridiculous route to head down. Ok, enough with the analogies, there shall be no more sad puppy talk here! Pro rightly questions, what does the Royal Family actually do? Well, as quoted from my source [3]:"The Royal Family is apolitical, so they can represent their country’s culture without being a stand-in for controversial policies."In other words, nobody would accuse the King or Queen of ordering the recent invasion of their country. It would be a ridiculous notion as that King or Queen is a constitutional monarch. This is where having very little political power can actually come in handy. The serving constitutional monarch is able to talk to international leaders in a way that the monarch's Prime Minister may have a hard time doing.But surely that's not all the monarch does to service their country? No, not in the slightest. [4]The Charities Aid Foundation estimated that the Queen brings in £1.4 Billion a year to charities collectively, in which she is patron. That, I hope pro will admit, is quite an impressive figure in itself. The Queen supports over 3000 charities worldwide, and that is just the Queen. Other members of the royal family, such as Princes Harry and William who have been known to support 16 charities, have done sterling work in helping those who need it most. What about other European Royal Families? Well, they certainly appear to be keeping their people happy in one way or another, as King Harald V of Norway [4] enjoys a 93% approval rating with the Norwegian people! I do not suggest that attempting to take their monarchy from them will be a particularly popular movement.Perhaps, in order to truly understand whether or not dissolving the monarchy is the key to making a country happy and successful, we should ask a country which has already done that! According to a poll taken in the USA, [5] Queen Elizabeth II held a 61% approval rating with. If this is compared to Barrack Obama's 45.5% approval rating, it's entirely possible that America might soon be petitioning their government for a Royal Family of their own! Queen Elizabeth II has seen through 11 US Presidents, 12 British Prime Ministers, 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers, 13 Australian Prime Ministers, and 11 Canadian Prime Ministers. She has been a symbol of Britain for 62 years and in that time she has served her realm with care and respect for others. She has been an incredible role model for her citizens and, whilst urging him to take these factors, as well as those listed above, into consideration, I pass the mic over to Pro! [1]http://www.theatlantic.com...[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[3]http://www.toptenz.net...[4]http://www.examiner.com...[5]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...