Context for the quote at the beginning:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page46...

BBC News article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politic...

Firstly, I would like to say that I think republicans in the UK have a perfectly valid point, though I personally don't agree with it and apparently neither do almost 80% of the British public.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7162649...

No offence is intended to James or Graham of Republic and I hope this video is taken in a lighthearted spirit.

My problem with republicans and republicanism is that they tend to criticise the monarchy for being undemocratic, but then rarely call for a referendum on whether it should be abolished, perhaps because most republicans know they would lose. So instead organisations such as Republic campaign on issues like the oath of allegiance or who appears on bank notes. Instead of this silly stuff, why not call for a referendum? I'd vote for the one who has been doing the job flawlessly for more than 50 years.

In the United Kingdom, the monarchy is a lot cheaper than a republic would be. 66p per person per year is a bargain. For that we get a link to a thousand years of history and a unifying national figure of which most countries are envious. In practice, the Queen rules at the pleasure of her subjects.

Also, having a nonpolitical head of state can be very useful. For example, if a tyrannical Prime Minister ever managed to get to power, the monarch would be the only one who could remove such a PM and call an election. This is what happened in Thailand after the 1981 coup, when the King stepped in to restore democracy. In a sense, the UK's unelected head of state is democracy's last line of defence.