.jpg?command_1=resize&width_1=220)
Priory House vs Wellesley House
Priory House and Wellesley House put forward compelling arguments during their debate about the monarchy. Arguments focused on areas such as the economic benefits/cost of the monarchy, the role the monarchy plays in tourism, and the political function of the monarchy (and whether there was a better alternative politically). Polly from Priory House put forward an incredibly polished and persuasive main debate speech - indeed, stylistically it was the standout performance. Naomi from Wellesley House arguably delivered the strongest debating - she analytically addressed Priory’s points with confidence and powerful factual retorts. In the end, Wellesley House just edged the victory - we look forward to the next round!
Rev'd George Beverly - Foundation Chaplain
Lyon House vs New House
The knock out round between Lyon and New was a very close fought debate on the motion that there is no justification for the British Monarchy. Lyon’s team of Rory, Sam and Arthur, argued that the monarchy provides poor value for money as maintaining the royal household, estates, security, and ceremonial functions places a heavy burden on taxpayers. Lyon claimed that the monarchy’s supposed financial benefits, such as tourism, are overstated, since visitors come for history and heritage, not living royals. In contrast New’s team of Gruffydd, Oscar and Olly countered that the monarchy is a net economic asset, generating substantial tourism revenue and international media interest. New also argued that royal events boost the economy and that replacing the monarchy with an elected head of state could be more expensive, not less. All six of the boys spoke eloquently using persuasive language and it was very difficult to judge for the Headmaster and I. In the end, after weighing the arguments, we concluded that Lyon had the slight edge and we awarded them the victory and a place in the semi-final.
Emily Simper - Deputy Head Pastoral
.jpg)