I've been hoping for something like the Velvet Revolution for a long time. Unfortunately as the expression goes it's the triumph of hope over experience.
In a country that has steadly seen employment rights eroded and the slow and steady underfunding and privatisation of healthcare and the related issues those two things have caused, to then watch them elect a government promising more of the same was quite depressing if expected.
So, no, i don't expect any changes. It's Britain. People will tut and cluck and moan that they can't find a dentist, get a GP appointment, that minimum wage covers nothing like the cost of a household, that property owners and businessmen continue to take an ever increasing slice of the collective pie without contributing a fair share to the pot…
Some of us will continue to highlight what Joseph Stieglitz calls "the price of inequality" and some will nod and agree, more will call us snowflakes and then the next crisis will come and those with a small amount of disposable cash will buy up all the toilet paper and cans.
As for the head of state question. Why assume we'd get a Boris Johnson or Tony Blair? we could quite as easily have a Caroline Lucas or Betty Boothroyd. There is nothing to say that Princess Anne couldn't announce her candidacy and stand for election. Our current head of state has absolutely zero power there is no need to assume that would change. Who does good work in the HoL for example? Tanni Grey-Thompson. She'd be a great head of state.
On the other hand, what i said above about the British voting public applies there too. But having an elected head of state, or an unelected one, doesn't mean people can't complain about it. They can, and should. They should hold their government to account, too, while we're at it.
The only advantage i can see of a monarchy over an elected head of state is that with a monarchy you know who's coming up next.