> the HN community think of the Queen
I can't speak for anybody else, but I can answer your question in seven words:
I usually don't think of the Queen.
I'm not her subject, since I'm a New Yorker and some of my English ancestors fought to throw off the tyranny of Britain. Some of my ancestors are French, and I think most of us know what the French think of monarchy; they created a technological solution to the sociopolitical problem of a burdensome ruling class.
As for Britain maintaining its half-assed monarchy: it's not like the Queen has any real authority, is it? Sure, she can open and dissolve Parliament, and gives her assent to laws passed by the Lords and Commons, but isn't the royal assent essentially a rubber stamp?
It seems to be Parliament and the Prime Minister calling the shots, and even the PM doesn't dare annoy Parliament too much. I wouldn't say that the British system is less democratic than the one we have in the US, where unelected billionaires all but buy Senators with impunity, and a few senators can force Congress to ignore the will of the people. If anything, I'd say that the UK is more republican than the US.
Besides, the monarchy seems to be good for tourism and the occasional scandal. We can't let the Kardiashians have all the fun, can we?
Now, let's talk about meritocracy. I know the word has positive connotations, especially here on HN, but we seemed to have forgotten that the word "meritocracy" was coined by Michael Dunlop Young in his dystopian satire, The Rise of the Meritocracy. Alas, too many people have misread it as they've misread 1984, The Handmaid's Tale, and Snow Crash, so that like these better-known books The Rise of the Meritocracy is treated as an instruction manual instead of a warning -- when it is read at all.