Whhhhaaattttt!? right back to you, Fred. The Press Gang, the floggings, whevs, continued unabated as before under the Commonwealth,and would have done so whether the monarchy had been restored or not (but it WAS restored, because PEOPLE MISSED IT AND WANTED IT BACK. Why else?) & are part of a completely different discourse from attitudes to the Monarchy-as-such. If you can't distinguish the two discourses, it is your perceptions at fault. Remember the man who had had a right-hand amputated because it who had written a pamphlet which offended Queen Elizabeth waved the bloodied stump & cried a loyal blessing on the Queen. {Regret have forgotten his name tho the story well authenticated - anyone remind me of it?} I think he was as daft as you do; and that his treatment was iniquitous. But he recognised that the law was not made by the Queen herself, who represented a world-view which he shared in general if not in specific detail.

"You'll be telling me next that they just couldn't wait to be press ganged ... and hauled off to be shot in foreign wars". Never mind what I'll be telling you: look again at "On Board a 98", the pressed man looking back on his life of service and 'blessing his fate' in having been made to '[do] my duty, serve my King', collected by Vaughan Williams, and see that that tells you:- that, yes, some did.

This is not to say that royalty do not have their own contribution to make to the discourse, an are rightly despised if they don't ~~ as I myself despised the present Queen's late sister who wanted all the privileges and respect while doing all she could to prove herself unworthy of them.