Those examples didn't deserve respect or deference either, just like the royal family.
Maybe so, but I was pointing out that your assertion that the Queen is no better than anyone else is false.
But who does deserve respect/deference, in your opinion?
"So help me God" is a figure of speech to me.
Clearly. Is your loyalty to the Constitution also just a figure of speech?
In my opinion there hasn't been an adequate defense of this reason not "to abolish it on more pragmatic grounds." It may sound like that's defending a negative but to me the extraordinary claim is that in this day and age the British hereditary constitutional monarchy serves a valid purpose and thus it is that claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
Okay, then. The defence of this is that few countries go from being a monarchy to being a republic without bloodshed. The UK/England did have a go; it was called the English Civil War, and England was headed up by the Protector General until he died and ... er... his son took over.
The American Revolution is another example of monarchy being thrown off for a republic which again required a lot of bloodshed.
The French Revolution did too. So did the Chinese Revolution. So did the Russian Revolution. The German Revolution occurred at the end of a massive amount of bloodshed called the First World War.
What you're asking is essentially why not take the risk of bloodshed and replace our current system with an untried system presumably created by people with whom I may not agree and with no guarantee that the Armed forces will stay loyal to "the state". If the vast majority of British people consider the Royals to be legitimate then replacing them with something whose legitimacy is uncertain is a bad idea.
to me the extraordinary claim is that in this day and age the British hereditary constitutional monarchy serves a valid purpose and thus it is that claim which requires extraordinary evidence.
It is up to you to find the claim that the monarchy "serves a valid purpose" to be extraordinary and I submit it says far more about your own prejudices rather than anything about objective reality. So, if you don't mind, I will treat the claim as an ordinary one and I will subject it to ordinary standards of evidence such as this poll which was conducted on British attitudes towards the monarchy.
A strong majority among people of all political persuasions and social groups think that Britain would be worse off without the monarchy. While just 26% think the country would be better off getting rid of the royal family, 63% say the opposite.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/24/monarchy-still-relevant-say-britons
ETA:
Almost 80% of people questioned in a telephone poll for the BBC have said Britain should retain its monarchy.
Some 78% of respondents agreed that Britain should still have a royal family and 19% disagreed.
BBC
This is from the Daily Mail, although it is from a few years back.
And it is the Daily Mail:
The monarchy still has overwhelming public support, an exclusive poll for the Daily Mail reveals.
Seven out of ten people flatly reject any suggestion of a republic.
Prospect Magazine also think that the majority of British people want to retain the monarchy.
Hopefully without anti-anyone verses, but I expect England Wales & NI will be stuck with God Save the Queen/King. Though Charlie might push for a more inclusive less god-bothering anthem I suppose.
