If I could add my two penneth to this non-debate. Firstly we have been at odds with our monarchs since Offa decided to label himself "king of the english" in the middle of the eighth century. Sometimes we changed them mid-term, (Ricky 2 to Henry 4), Sometimes we chopped their heads off; Charlie 1. Yet we have always returned to the basic principle that a constitutional monarch is preferable to the alternative; for reasons all to obvious.
The point is that if we dispense with them at this juncture in time, what's to say we won't regret it fifty years on? All these vacuous lefties that scream "remove the king, or replace him with a family member they personally approve of, aka a talent show for the top job where we end up with the limp lad from las angeles, should take a couple of hours of their otherwise shallow lives, to read up on our country's history and stop appearing as something with the mental capacity of an amoeba, as it does neither you or the rest of us any credit.
And finally the monarch has no power as such. Yes, we bow and scrape like a sycophantic grey seal, but it is out of respect for the office, not necessarily the person. The real power lies elsewhere.
Rant over and back to insulating the loft with all those old socks that have been accumulating in the drawer since 1963.
ps. Our tame watchdog thinks the shortening of Richard to its more common usage is somehow obscene.
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere