As is often the case, the public is being pushed into two polarised positions, and this is dangerous. Neither of these positions is correct unfortunately because the people are generally missing the concealed truths as to how the constitution functions. The two positions appear to be broadly as follows:
Neither of these positions is healthy without the core understanding and purpose of our monarchy and without the understanding of the constitution. The head of state - the monarch, is a critical office. They are the highest public servant in the land and, far from being merely ceremonial in nature, as many claim, have an important job.
What is that job? Put simply, it is to protect the people from government-created law encroaching on their liberties. It's quite simple really!
Did Queen Elizabeth achieve that during her reign? Surely that is the question.
If she did, then she is to be well-respected and loved. If she failed in that regard, then unfortunately (sad though this might be for many), we must stop lying to ourselves and admit that her reign was not positive, as, failing to perform that role has serious consequences.
So what is that role and how should it work?
The monarch of England (now Britain) has the power to decide on the appropriateness of proposed legislation coming from parliament. All legislation must receive Royal Assent if it is to get onto the Statute books.
If those 'laws' (bills coming from parliament) that are put before our monarch are dangerous to the freedoms and liberties of the people or they would in any way be an infringement of our constitution, then the monarch is obligated and required under the authority of the constitution to refuse Royal Assent. It is a protection mechanism against the usurpation of the people's sovereignty.
Sadly, Elizabeth failed to do this on a number of occasions. Not least the Treaty of Nice - which led unlawfully, to the giving away of our sovereign right to our own governance. This was high treason.