Within a monarchy the general populace are 'subjects' to a monarch, who, generally by virtue of bloodline, is intrinsically superior to the people - think of having to address someone in normal life, 'Your majesty.' What kind of dynamic of power is in play? And so the British national anthem is God Save the Queen, not God Save the People. The people find their validation before God in the person of the monarch.
And since no human can be more than human, and the monarch is human, the necessary logic here is that Britons are, within the framework of the State, subhuman; intrinsically lesser than, 'subject' to, another who contrarily is human.
Knighthoods and the like can be seen as conferred blessings from above where the subhuman subjects ascend towards the highest ideal of human existence, though since this state is unique to the monarch, in the absence of becoming monarch oneself, becoming human cannot be attained. Servility is one's natural and rightful state of being.
A different starting-point takes us a similar route, and that is the notion that the royalty are indeed more than human, which seems to have been often the ancient use of kingship. The same dynamic of ascendancy reigns, with the people as centres of consciousness less real than the monarch, but here the people are granted the status of human, but to be human is itself as a biological condition to be a slave species and there is no route upwards to the throne of existential creation.
Which of the two variations is more traumatic to the subjects is debatable.
One might say this is archaic and fantastic; that now we have full rights and all the rest of it, but this is to view the human condition very superficially. For one thing, subconsciously the self understands the implied truth of all the above, even if it is rare that it will bubble up into conscious awareness. This intrinsic mental software, conditioned to servility, has been part of the human condition for vast stretches of time and won't disappear overnight, or even over a century or two. Though it could all disappear in an enlightening flash for the individual. Freedom here consists not in an expansion but an unwriting or vanishing of the software, not through a destructive concentration on attacking the negative processes, but through the awakening of autonomous life where these processes simply don't appear. A negative is fed through immersion within its parameters. When such immersion doesn't occur, on that individual level the negative must absent itself as a matter of course. Unlike that which is alive, inseparably of life, it is not autonomously alive. It is simply misdirected energy from life, and once that misdirection ceases, it ceases.