Queen Elizabeth II (Update: the Queen has passed)
They have an army of flunkies to do that for them.
The Queen used to have a servant turn the pages of her newspaper for her.
Charles used to have four royal aides following him around doing such menial tasks as picking his dirty underpants off the floor, while another held a specimen bottle for him while he had a pee....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/16/monarchy.jamiewilson
Sorry, Geldo, but as much extravagant, pompous, and personal flourishes Charles III or Elizabeth II have enjoyed during their reigns, their power, prestige, and ability to govern or affect nation's socio-political, economic affairs is nothing compared to the royal absolutism enjoyed by the "Sun King" Louis XIV, his ancien French Bourbon ancestors or his two royal decscendants, his great-grandson, Louis XV, who was only a mere 5-6 years old when he took power and turned Versailles into his personal multi-story royal harem, in a palatial area courtiers nicknamed, "The Deer Park". Louis XIV, when he said, he was the state, he meant it in no clear exaggeration. He turned what had been a modest royal hunting lodge owned by his father, Louis XIII, into the most glamorous, haughty, expensive, lush Royal palaces of Europe, a den of decadence, hedonism, sex and debauchery that hadn't been seen or recorded by historians since Tiberius ancient pleasure/torture palace on Capri 1,600 years earlier (Geldo, where a young royal prisoner/niece of Tiberius named Caligula learned and mastered his later, infamous deviancies, if you've read Gibbons, or Tacitus, Suetonius, Geldo, then I don't need to repeat too terribly much of what we both know likely occured on Capri, some of its so shocking and sickening, it can't be repeated on a family forum like SR.com).
Ancient Roman social-class conflict or structure is like Candy Land for Marxist historians, writers, or academics, Geldo.
Essentially, any last chance or hope for any real royal absolutism in England was settled, violently by the English Civil War from 1642-49, the defeat of Charles I's Royalists, his conviction, sentencing and execution in January 1649 even though Oliver Cromwell tried hard to give Charles I an out and save himself from being executed, Charles still stubbornly refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of his loss of power, privileges and recognize Cromwell's Protectorate, i.e. military dictatorship. I realize most of the Stuart monarchs had a poor, working relationship with Parliament, even the more effective ones like James I, and Charles II disbanded Parliament and ruled alone for periods of time. But they could never fully get rid of or eliminate the existence or legitimacy of Parliament and how it served as a check to royal despotism and abuse.Ive always felt the Levelers faction was sort of English Civil War's version of the Jacobins, an interesting proto-Marxist socio-political faction. Soberly though, the English Civil War is still the costliest conflict in English/British history in terms of the losses of life of men, women, children and civilians in England, Wales, Scotland, and even parts of Ireland, later on.
King Louis XIV.and his ancestral Bourbon monarchs didnt have to worry about such issues, except from the street fronde factions in the early 17th century. Versailles was actually built to round up, bring in and monitor all of the major French notables, or nobility who might pose political problems for the French kings. And it wasnt the threat of dangerous nobles that later on brought the French Revolution, it was centuries of unpaid debts on wars, expenditures, costs begun during Louis XIV's reign and rising inflation creeping into French economy, combined with an unequal tax structure where nobles and clergy paid little-to-no taxes and you have events like the Tennis Court Oath, Storming of the Bastille, and finally, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette being forced by a Parisian working-class mob led by mostly illiterate, female "fish-mongers" to live under armed-guard at the Twilliers Palace.