MtheGM; I fully accept that non-royalist views are a minority, even more so those who hold the view that the Royals should be abolished completely. Your point about democracy is worth challenging though; surely in a healthy democracy it is the duty of those in the minority to put forward an alternative view, so that democratic process can decide the way forward. That's what is happening on this thread. It's irrelevant whether those opposing the monarchy are a majority or not. Your view seems to be that the minority should simply accept the view of the majority, and keep quiet.
There will be a watershed in that regard; much of the respect for the monarchy is bound up with the present Queen. When she dies, there is a great deal less respect for the heir apparent, after his reprehensible behaviour over the years. (Perhaps the reason why she won't abdicate). What will happen then is a huge PR and patronage effort from those who stand to gain from Charles's succession; a lot depends on whether the public will see through the hyperbole and accept a foppish, ineffectual adulterer as their Sovereign. Would you be in favour of a referendum about whether Charles should succeed his mother at that point? As a professed democrat, you should be, but we both know that our lords and masters will never let that happen. Where is democracy then? Opinion polls are one thing, elections are another; why not elect our Head of State? Call them a Monarch if you like, but make sure they have the support of the majority before giving them a life of luxury in perpetuity.