Time's a great healer my friend, as happened to the Queen after the Diana 'thing'. We all didn't think that much of them at the time, but since, the Monarchy has changed and after a few sneaky PR moves, they've won over a lot of people again. The Golden Jubilee helped massively, and the death of the Queen Mum made them look more human.
I do think a lot of the Queen. I don't have a Union Jack tea towel with her head on it or anything, but I do admire her. She's the Head of State, which means the buck stops with her, which we need. People like Blair and Brown needed a senior figure above them to keep them in check, which is what we get. At the top of the structure we have someone who doesn't have to get re-elected, or make up policies and gimmicks to make the news. The Monarch's sole job is to look after the country, not their own image or future. OK, she doesn't have any real power, but she's there, ready to tell the Prime Minister if they're doing something wrong or add their experience. The Queen's been on the throne for 50 years, she's the most experienced Head of State in the world, advice like hers is the best you can get.
I met Prince Charles a few years ago, and he seemed like a decent bloke. But, he seems a bit mad and is now 60, I reckon he'll be 70+ by the time he takes the throne, and well, is it worth it? William would be 36 or so by then, and might be a better replacement. Charles will never be a popular King, but William definately would be. It'd mean Charles abdicating though.
And in terms of money and the monarchy. The Monarchy costs each taxpayer 60p a year. That's nothing. You pay that in the first half-second of filling your car with petrol, which puts it into context. For that 60p you get at the very least a very well-informed advisor to the Government.
The Monarchy is a steady background to the nonsense that is modern politics. It also solves the problem of what to put on the back of coins!
