Many of us from working class backgrounds can remember as youngsters being happy for the Royal Family when there was an 'event' in their lives.
However, Labour back then was very different from the Labour Party of today. Those of us who started out poor took our opportunities (against all the odds) to make something of ourselves. Those principles probably still apply to those disadvantaged in the UK of today. Being poor in the 50s when we had few rights, no advocates, no help and also felt much shame and discrimination meant that we had an uphill struggle, always.
Now we tend to see the politics of envy, the hatred of the wealthy, the anarchic (Marxist) desire to break the system and a Labour Party comprised of middle class wealthy people and supported by right-on wealthy people who haven't a clue what hardship is about. The Labour Party under Corbyn is not a monarchist one. As someone who has always striven to do my best and get by on my own efforts, I feel the Conservative party, not Labour, is more attuned to the needs of most, including the worse off. If you have aspirations of any sort, even modest ones, and earn money, (most of us?) beware Labour. A levelling down would be on the cards and the likes of Labour MP (Lady) Emily Thornberry, who sneers at the working man and his way of life makes me highly suspicious of 2019 style socialism.
Supporting the royal family is not a crime. If one accepts they are 'different' and always have been. They are a bit of a a distraction and a peep show involving, pomp, ceremony and pageantry for us mere mortals.
I do object to the size of the family the public is expected to support (I see Harry and Meghan as surplus to requirements now, for example) but not knowing the figures and which funds pay for what, I cannot be outraged by their existence. I suspect Charles may trim The Firm to immediate heirs/future monarchs when his time comes. I'd welcome that.