What has the fact its 2017 got to do with it?
The world is becoming a more fcuked up place every year that passes, so how would it make any difference to you if we got rid of the monarchy?
I'd rather have a national symbol of decency than go down the route of the USA, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Philippines, France or Australia by appointing right wing idiots to be the figurehead of international discussion.
Erm...the British monarchy might be many things, but as a barely loyal subject out here in Canada, I think it's fair to assert that 'decency' isn't the first thing that springs to mind.
From the perspective of perhaps every Commonwealth member apart from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the British monarchy stands as a symbol of a painful past that they'd rather move on from - the Foreign Office's efforts to rebrand that past as a 'shared history' as opposed to a considerably brutal, amoral, extractive relationship haven't really changed that (although they've been trying for fifty-odd years). Every time Canada puts the Queen on the latest iteration of our currency (or Australia, or New Zealand), 'queen-less' members of the Commonwealth are reminded of the subtle historical differences between the white former colonies who still nominally maintain their status as Commonwealth realms and themselves - and why those differences exist.
From the perspective of many Brits and relatively more informed people around the world, the sheen of the monarchy took a beating on the Pont de l'Alma back in 1997. For Brits who remember the scandals the royal family was mired in back in the 80's, I suspect there are even fewer illusions about the moral imperfections of the people who comprise that institution.
For the average Joe in America, Europe, Asia and elsewhere, the Queen is just quaint and old-fashioned - a symbol of British deference to authority, politeness, tradition, what have you. But I'd argue that doesn't constitute a recognition of 'decency' as much as it does an assessment of the institution as being too antiquated to be anything but a tourist attraction.
Ultimately, it's a discussion for Brits to have, and I'm not saying the Royal family is an entirely negative institution (like I said, it generates tourist revenue if nothing else, and keeps traditions alive in what is still a distinctly Burkean society overall - a very important function). But morals don't come into it, imo.