I'm sure that Parliament has more important things to be...
The British monarchy should be abolished.
I apologize for that. I tried to avoid calling the entire UK "England" during this, but in the states she's known as the Queen of England. It slipped out. I honestly think that the second the sweet little old lady is gone, the movement to get the monarchy gone will dramatically increase in size. Let's get this debate going again. "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." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that it is safe to assume that were the monarchy displaced, the Prime Minister would become the new Head of State. If this is true, then the whole posh white people think wouldn't end with monarchy. The current Prime Minister is David Cameron. His family is worth £30,000,000 ($50,000,000). He's not exactly worried about his next electricity bill. Also, he's white. "In response to your point about how Republics had slaves in the past, I remind you that correlation doesn't imply causation." I wasn't trying to say that correlation equals causation, I'm quite surprised it was taken that way. My point was that there have been good monarchies, and bad republics. I'd rather live in a monarchy with a benevolent ruler than a republic with immoral values. "To pick up on the word 'stable', let it be known that Monarchies do not unite and stabilise countries." North Korea has a dictator, and it's actually becoming more stable. [8]. Regarding where pro mentioned that monarchies do not unite, I'd like it to be noticed that a strong leader can definitely unify a nation. "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." A source here would be absolutely lovely. "The Crown has strong powers called Royal Prerogative powers which the Queen may use as she pleases." Getting rid of an entire system because of the theoretical powers the queen has is a waste of time. I'm sure that Parliament has more important things to be doing. Frankly, the Queen has been much more sparing with her ability to declare war than the Prime Minister's have been. When the UK entered Iraq in 2003, that was from a declaration of war by the PM, not her majesty. The only real problem I see with Royal Prerogative is the crown immunity [9]. The monarch should be accountable for their actions. I still don't believe that the entire position should be eradicated for that one reason though. Maybe the powers should be slightly more limited is all. "No. The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights states that all are born 'equal in dignity and rights'". I shall revisit this with a new argument. The children of all world leaders are born with more rights than other children. If the UN isn't going to care about Sasha and Malia Obama having the ability to go a fancy private school on taxpayer money, they shouldn't care about what the leaders of the UK do. "I know exactly how the Royal Family has obtained money. I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question." Definition of "earn": To bring about or cause deservedly [10] Earn doesn't necessarily relate to money. I was referring to how they've earned what they have. I was not referring to how they obtained money. Also, even if that was my point, Pro failed to tell me how the obtained money even after stating "I like to enter debates with a full knowledge of the topic in question." Time out: I like to debate things outside of my realm of complete understanding because research is a great way to learn. Time in: The population of the United Kingdom is 64.3 Million people according to the government's website. £299,400,000/64,300,000= £4.65. 4 and a half pounds is pretty negligible given that in 2009 some places in the UK were paying as much as an average of £10,500 in taxes per person. [12]. Even if it does cost the average taxpayer to house the crown, it's not really that much. "Prince William and Kate recently had their Kensington apartment refurbished at a cost of around "4,000,000 to the taxpayer." I honestly have nothing to say about that. That's pretty messed up. As I said before, maybe higher restrictions are a better alternative than complete abolition. "Would the American people tolerate it if President Obama's cousin's son was given a lovely $6,000,000? I think not." Obama could personally fly to Nigeria to fight the Ebola outbreak and would still be criticized about it. I understand your point but he's a bad example. "The Louvre, the palace in which the French Royals lived, in 2012 saw 8,000,000 visitors through its doors." That may be true, but the Louvre is not used as a palace anymore. It is a museum that houses some fantastic pieces of art. Also, France is the most visited country in the world [13]. It's only fitting that the Louvre would be so much more popular than Buckingham Palace. "What has this baby contributed to the world to make it important? Absolutely nothing, it has been born." Well what have you contributed to the world aside from being born? The two men you named: Hawking and Mandela have been extremely influential. Get out there, make a name for yourself. Become rich and famous. There are many countries with worse economic mobility than in Scotland. "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?" Well you always have the possibility of becoming the Prime Minister. At this point the crown does nothing more than ceremonial things, and the PM seems to be the de facto head of state. In conclusion, the monarchy should stay but face tighter restrictions. Also, I do not believe that Pro refuted my point that there have been good monarchies and bad republics. Finally, I think that Parliament has more important things to be doing than worry that the 88 year old lady will try to take back absolute control. [8] http://blogs.wsj.com... [9] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [10] http://dictionary.reference.com... [11] http://ons.gov.uk... [12] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [13] http://en.wikipedia.org...