Seriously though, the present Queen has been a model of tact and diplomacy, and helped keep alive the notion of the sovereign (toothless and powerless, but visible) at the apex of the constitutional order. Will Charles be the same? The runes aren't wholly positive, and expect some constitutional shenanigans when the Queen dies. Charles has pretty openly expressed frustration at his role ('spidery letters') and his becoming monarch may exacerbate matters. We have been used to over 60 years of HM's grace and discretion, and the slightest change of style will be pounced on by anyone seeking a change in the constitution. And since we have an 'unwritten' constitution (untrue: but key elements are matters of convention rather than constitutional law) one can expect some changes.
There will be those who urge 'the will of the people' and demand more direct democratic input unmediated (or diluted) by any apparent royal influence. While philosophically laudable, perhaps, such agitations would only mask the true tyranny, which is that the House of Commons rules us all, even if the MPs of the majority party secured fewer votes than others, and irrespective of how extreme, and contrary to public opinion, the policies of the ruling party may be. A true democracy should reflect the wishes and aspirations of all the citizens, and that is not achieved by 'first past the post.' That system has the advantage of certainty, but the disadvantage of dogma.
On the Queen's death, lobby vigorously for proportional representation. It is, in essence, a noble English tradition. Lord Halifax, over 300 years ago, argued for government to be a matter of 'trimming', to catch the wind of popular opinion without the vagaries and unreason of the vocal and articulate minority.