Which, if true, might suggest that they should, like the rest of the population, prioritise what's essential and what isn't.
Although not a monarchist, and having read some of the correspondence on here on the perceived 'value' of having a monarch, I've so far chosen not to become involved in what predictably has become a 'for or against' exchange. Some of the arguments put forward for the continuation of a monarch have strayed into red-top exaggeration as if this constitutes the basis for an informed and helpful discussion.
It's an often murky topic not helped by an apparent need to enter into a blinkered infantilism where support for the idea of monarchy is concerned.
I'd prefer to leave this level of discourse to those who appear to regard their historical myopia as some sort of necessary educator rather than the sometimes unhelpful and emotive reasons meant to support their arguments.
As I say, I'd prefer not to get bogged down in the arguments for and against the abolition/retention of a monarchy. I happen to think that there are more vital and worthwhile social issues that are worthy of discussion, so let those who consider their support for monarchy remain as it seems to satisfy a primal need to be ruled.