I agree the monarchy is an anachronism. It is a privileged life, but also one of extraordinary constraints. The Queen is personally wealthy (although not wealthy enough to appear in the Top 250 of the Sunday Times Rich List) but has comparatively little freedom to enjoy it. It seems a cruel thing to do to a family.

On the other hand, it is unclear whether republics fare any better than monarchies. There is an argument that monarchies provide greater stability, but probably there are too many other variables to draw any proper conclusions. What is certain is that an elected head of state, even one with a purely ceremonial role, is inevitably a political figure to some degree.

It is true the British monarch is not elected by the people. Nevertheless her powers are mostly exercised through the elected parliament.

The impact of the cost of the monarchy is exaggerated. The Sovereign Grant in 2020-21 was £85.9m, equivalent to £1.29 per person. Of that, £34.4m was for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, which is owned by the Crown ie the state, not the Queen personally. It is a publicly-owned asset. The core cost is equivalent to 77p per person. The Sovereign Grant is paid from income from the Crown Estate (with the remainder going to the Treasury), not from general taxation.

Of course a stripped-down head of state could cost less to run. The Irish presidency costs only €5m, on the other hand Denmark's costs €80m and Poland's €115m. It is difficult to know if this is comparing like with like. £85.9m is a large sum, but compared with total public expenditure of over £1 trillion it is a drop in the ocean. It is legitimate to debate how public money is spent, but it is naïve to think that saving a few million here or there will make any difference to anything.

Of course it is entirely legitimate to want a republic, but polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority don't support it. Personally I am content with what we have. That may be in part due to the current Queen, who on the whole has done a remarkably good job of adapting the role to changes in society. It remains to be seen how well Charles will do (I suspect better than his critics believe) but the institution is greater the than the individual holding it. Nevertheless it must continue to adapt, and that probably means reducing the roles of the wider Royal Family.