The monarchy should be abolished in the UK

Actually the monarchy costs the taxpayer nothing, as all income from the Crown Estates is donated to the treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk...), which last year totalled ï¿½256million (http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk...). That means the taxpayer is actually gaining ï¿½216million each year. Then there is income generated from the royals income tax, which is in the millions (http://www.royal.gov.uk...). Royal events such as weddings and funerals also generated income for the people (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) (http://news.travel.aol.com...) (http://news.scotsman.com...) (http://www.bbc.co.uk...), we can see from television figures that Royal events are popular here and worldwide, with Diana's funeral and the Queen Mothers funeral being among the most watched events ever.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk...), which gives a scale of how much money can be generated from their events. Then there is the flood of tourists who come here on the back of it still being a monarchy, which provides an invaluable boost to local and national business' (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...). You wouldn't get that from the election or marriage of a non royal. I don't know why my opponent assumes that if the monarchy was abolished their wealth would go to the treasury, not only is that illegal (http://www.inbrief.co.uk...) but it isn't as beneficial as he may think. The Queen isn't even in the top 12 richest in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org...), in fact she isn't even the richest monarch in the world, not even in the top 10 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...). Most of the monarchy's wealth is in their assets, which totals ï¿½6.6billion (http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk...), so even if the treasury confiscated their wealth they would have to find buyers for those assets before any income was generated. It would make more sense to confiscate the wealth of Lakshmi Mittal, whose fortune is that of 10 monarchs. My opponent also does not realise that a lump sum injection into the treasury does not result in new projects. Economies are based on income, and credit ratings (http://www.guardian.co.uk...). If the UK were to use the monarchs wealth to build new hospitals, it would then be lumbered with the cost of their upkeep, costing the taxpayer more. As I pointed out in the first paragraph, it is far more beneficial to have the steady and vast income generated from the monarchy, which if abolished would simply go into their own pockets and not to our treasury. The argument that they have no place in British society is an odd one. In 2000 years, only 10 have been without a monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org...), and that isn't even getting into the debate of whether Cromwell was King in all but name. Does my opponent think our rights, legals systems and traditions developed separate to the culture that has always had a monarch? British society is a constitutional monarchy, without the monarchy there would be no Britain, only England, Cymru and Alba (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If British society is a constitutional monarchy, then how can the monarchy have no place in that same society? In the surveys undertaken over the last 15 years an overwhelming amount support the monarchy (http://news.bbc.co.uk...) (http://populuslimited.com...). British society obviously, not only wants the monarchy, but likes the monarchy. In fact, in a survey (http://populuslimited.com...), not one age group had less than 51% saying they could relate to the Royal family, with some age groups even having 61%. So if the British people are relating to the Royal family on many issues, how can they have no place in our society? It is obvious that as their power diminished, their role changed within the UK, and that role is one that the people of Britain appreciate. I have disproved all three of my opponents points, and shown that the monarchy should not be abolished. I await his response.