We have just had a royal wedding which, let's face it, was very different to the last one. Given that the Duke of Cambridge is second in line to the throne, and his three children follow, and the Duke of Sussex is now sixth in line to the throne, that should be little surprise. They are, after all, very different people who do play rather different roles as such.
HM Queen Elizabeth II has been our sovereign since 1952. She is the head of state of 16 nations, the most of any head of state, and the Head of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a role that will pass to her son to ensure continuity. For there would be no Commonwealth without the British monarchy. The British monarchy, and that of the Realms, is as close to the Universal Monarchy concept of Charles V and other Holy Roman Emperors one can find.
The monarchy's popularity can be explained not simply by any celebrity status but by the fact that it is a system that has stood the test of time. Nobody has been able to come up with a workable alternative in the realms, and the alternatives that exist - one that produces a divisive and partisan head of state - are profoundly unappealing.
That, and republicans in the UK and Australia where they are particularly noisy invariably drive people away with their whiny, miserable and hateful behaviour. So much that even many people who are not at all monarchists are invariably turned off, and often come to our side.
Unfortunately, one problem is that decades of progressive dominance of education has meant that too many simply are unappreciative of our system of government and law, and how it all works. It's certainly deliberate, as deliberate as the agenda of those pushing for a republic which would be nothing more than a smokescreen for the overhaul of the state to their ends.
We monarchists as ever are vigilant. We need to be and have been since the last referendum in 1991. And it's unlikely that in Australia there will be any appetite for a referendum anytime soon, no matter what selfish politicians and whiny republican campaigners want.
Admittedly, the question mark is so often on the Royal Family themselves. They have worked hard to maintain the monarchy and its relevance in the modern age. Yet the latest marriage opens up a certain dilemma for supporters and detractors of the Crown alike.
We are in an age where postcolonialism and identity politics is very much in vogue on the Left. Much has been made about the Duchess of Sussex's background. Questions have been raised about her suitability for marriage into the Royal Family. There are concerns, no doubt, about the potential divisiveness of this among supporters of the monarchy. We have seen negative reactions, albeit in a minority. Yet we have also seen signs that people are trying to use this for their own agenda.
The naked truth is that no amount of concessions and gestures our Royal Family make will win over those who hate them, and us, for what they and we are. Britain and the monarchy is synonymous in the minds of these people with "colonialism" and "racism", and the marriage of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is not going to change that. Members of the Royal Family have shown plenty of empathy to diverse groups of people (the citizens of countries once part of the Empire, minority communities and whatnot), but this has not won over the radicals one iota. And never will.
The Royals are presiding over a society which is increasingly polarised society, ones which are increasingly Balkanised ethnically, culturally and ideologically. It is the trend in Western democracies, and one that has led many to ask if we are going to see a situation akin to 1930s Spain on our hands. We surely hope not.
And perhaps the monarchy and the Royal Family will be a reason why it won't be.