Mild monarchist. I haven’t seen any decent reasons to go to all the trouble of performing such a massive change to our legal and political systems.
An anti-monarchist. I avoid saying what seems to be the assumed opposite, ‘republican’, because that seems to be immediately interpreted as wanting a powerful presidential system.
Mild Republican. However, I too voted “no” in the '99 referendum*, but that was only because the whole process was (probably deliberately) wrecked by the government of the time. Time enough to get our republic when the process of deciding how it works is in the hands of somebody who actually wants it to happen.
*ok, full disclosure, I intended to vote no - I actually voted “oh bugger, 7pm, are the polling places shut ALREADY?”
I dislike the fact that Charles (who shows few qualities himself for being our Monarch) committed adultery with her before, during and after his marriage to Diana.
This is possible?
Nothing at all (except her choice of husband) 
Wasn’t Camilla married?
I suppose I’m a mild monarchist. I don’t see the point of going through a big change for very little (if any) benefit, and I don’t trust our body politic not to make a gigantic arse of the process.
Ahh, good point.
B. I’m a strong republican
Monarchist ,I dread the idea of having a yet another politician with all the cronyism ,deal doing and self publiscising that would come with it as our defence against governmental misconduct.
As to adultery Charlie and Di’s marriage was a dynastic one NOTa love match as they both knew before during and afterwards what ever BS Di spewed out and while the Windsors have done everything in their power to save Dis reputation she was very much a man eater and most certainly no saint.
She was known as the fairy tale princess because she was always spinning fairy tales, about herself ,about the Windsors and just about anybody she came in contact with.
The sad thing is that people actually fell for her line of BS even after it was publicly exposed as being just that.
Anti-monarchist. Absurd in this day and age.
I’m not sure anymore.
I don’t find monarchy offensive like I did when I was younger, and I appreciate its stability. If I do still lean towards republicanism, it’s certainly of the minimalist model.
A, because I agree with the above, it works fine for a non-political head of state for me, and I like the tradition.
Incidentally, I’d like to see the ties strengthened between Commonwealth countries, though I realise the monarchy doesn’t really come into that and doesn’t always offer the best value for all countries.
Monarchist. I don’t mind paying the £0.62 a year it costs each citizen to keep up the pomp and ceremony.
C. I’m largely apathetic to the issue, as are just about all the people I know.
Well color me fascinated.
I asked because, during the course of a recent discussion, a British friend of mine said that, while he could acknowledge both good and bad to the current system, he doesn’t really consider himself either monarchist or not-monarchist. Doing so would require him to actually have a real opinion on the issue, something he can’t quite manage.
I was expecting more replies leaning towards C, considering that whether or not there’s a monarchy would perhaps effect what your currency looks like and not all that much more.
FWIW, if I were British* I think I’d need to label myself as an adamant republican, for two reasons. The first is that I have a problem with any system that leads to people being “better” because they were born into a certain family and that’s worse when it’s government-sponsored. The second is because I believe monarchy firmly supports the silly hat industry, and they must be stopped.
Au contraire! It’s one of their few redeeming features. 
Rabid republican for as long as I have been politically aware. That is, since about the age of 10.
And what Aspidistra said about the referendum. I think Howard very cynically framed the terms of the Republican Convention to ensure it’s defeat.
I see no reason to have a President, as they would be elected which automatically means a politician. The saving strength of the exisiting system (Kerr notwithstanding) is that the Govenor General is an individual ultimately answerable to their own conscience. There is no reason to change this. Keep the title of GG, and appointed by Parliament NOT elected.
William Deane (or Marie Bashir!) for first Republican GG!!
(OK, yes I DO care about this)
The answer depends (here at any rate) largely on your politics. If you’re conservative, then you’re for the Crown. You don’t get right-wing republicans here.
I worked for a couple of summers as a barman in a miners welfare club (late 1980s) in a place I lived a lot of my teenage years. Politically a lot of those guys were deepest Red - like Rosa Luxemburg Red, economically speaking - but woe betide anyone who slagged off the Queen*. Mick McGahey** used to come in sometimes after doing the firebrand thing and play dominoes. Those men loathed the government as it was then, but most of them would have taken arms in defence of the Monarchy/country and the older ones had done so. Ain’t it odd how the left/right liberal/conservative Monarchist/Republican thing breaks down.
- Not for Protestant Unionist reasons - a lot of the old timers were Catholic - and it’s sad to have to note this particular caveat
** Older Brits will know who Mick was