Dman has written several posts about the younger generations of British royals and the modernization (reshaping) of the monarchy in the ''Meghan Markle: Future Duties, Roles and Responsibilities'' thread.
Here are some points from me:
The Queen as an apolitical monarch:
* Being driven in open cars from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing it due to her age, but did it again in 2016 for her 90th birthday).
* Went on walkabouts from 1970 to 2012 (stopped doing it due to her age, but did it again in 2016 for her 90th birthday).
* Visiting and opening hospitals, schools, community clubs, factories etc (some of it as patron) - mostly from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing much of it due to her age.
* Gives dinners, receptions several times a year from 1952 - present, but on a smaller scale after 2013.
* Does the annual stuff like the state opening, trooping, investitures and garden partes and the head of state things like the audiences.
* Gives unifying christmas speeches and other speeches without being political.
* Went on Commonwealth/state visits from 1953 to 2015 where she have helped to build friendships between countries (even been described as the worlds top diplomat).
* Celebrated her Silver, Golden and Diamond Jubilees to unify the UK.
* Celebrated her 60th, 80th and 90th birthdays to unify the UK.
* She has also supported and visited her more than 600 Patronages, but without taking a political stand - mostly from 1952 to 2012 (stopped doing most off her charity visits due to her age).
She has modernized the monarchy (and her mysterious role as British monarch) with documentaries such as the Royal Family (BBC/ITV 1969), Elizabeth R (BBC 1992), The Royal Family at Work (BBC 2007), The Diamond Queen (BBC 2012), Our Queen (ITV 2013), Our Queen at 90 (ITV 2016) and Elizabeth at 90: A Family Portrait (BBC 2016).
Also done it with the walkabouts (which I mentioned above), the BBC televised Children's Party at the Palace for her 80th birthday in 2006, her James Bond thing during the 2012 Olympics and with the pop concerts for her Golden and Diamond Jubilees + all the garden parties and receptions she has given during her long reign.
In addition to all that, she has comforted people when horrible things have happened (including the London bombings in 2005 and the awful things that happened last year).
And she's never been political (with the exception of the Margaret Thatcher stuff in 1986).
She has also always been very popular (even after Diana's death) according to polls.
What does all this tell us?
1. That she has obviously done something right.
2. That this is how an apolitical ceremonial constitutional monarch behaves and acts (also in modern times).
3. If Charles and William are wise (something I think they are), then they will do much of the same (and I don't think we will see many interviews from them after their successions to the throne).
Other family members: They have a freer role than what the monarch has, but they are part of an apolitical institution and the most important role of British royal family members with the style and title of HRH and Prince/Princess (except for Beatrice/Eugenie, prince/princess Michael and the Duchess of Kent) is to support the Queen in her role as apolitical Head of State and Head of Nation in the UK and her role asapolitical Head of State in the other 15 Commonwealth realms and in her role as Head of the Commonwealth.
Their other important role (if we can call it that) is to take on charities, but that is also in a way on behalf of the apolitical monarch. - Why? Because they do it as royal work (and therefore they must be very careful in not being political).
Charles: I like and admire him, and I agree with him when it comes to environment issues, but it's not wise for the heir to the throne to lobby political leaders on that or other issues (not that I think he does, but he is constantly accused for doing it), and he has to stopp writing letters to ministers (something I'm pretty sure he will do after his accession to the throne).
William: I'm a big fan of him, and I think the Heads Together campaign is a very good thing, but he, Kate and Harry must be a bit careful. - Why? Because it's a political issue, and they have received much criticism for getting involved in it (not only from the Daily Fail, but from serious pro-monarchy commentators).
Harry: Yes, much freer in his role than Charles and William, but he must start thinking before speaking and stop involving himself in political issues.
And then to the Meghan issue:
1. I like her.
2. But to openly say that she disagree with a thing isn't something she (as a member of the BRF) should be doing.
And the kicker is that The Times requires a subscription to view the CC. Which I understand from a business perspective, but it would be so easy to set that one Times page so that the public could read the CC. As a "for the common good" gesture. 
