The armed forces, like most of the armed forces of europe (including republican France) were very outdated at the start of WWII - there is no doubt about that. Following 'the war to end all wars', few anticipated another global conflict so soon. There was a general lack of preparation for the military rise of Germany across Europe. You can hardly blame the King of England for that!

Yes, there were links between some Nazis and some members of the royal family (that is not disputed by anyone, shouldn't be news to anyone), as there had been strong family links between the King and Kaiser bill in the previous war. Some suspect some members of the royal family (and one in particular) of having Nazi sympathies, but few think that it was general throughout the family - the one maoin suspected sympathiser was very much a remote figure on the fringe of things by that point in time.

Using Cromwell as an example of great British 'Republicanism' or upstanding leadership is not really a great idea for your case. Although some like to paint the Civil War as a battle between 'Royalist authoritarians' and 'Parliamentary repulbican libertarians, standing up for democracy and a change from the old ways of dictatorship', that really is a long, long way from the truth - it is a complete and clear misunderstanding of history, often made by those who are not well educated in the real events in, and reasons for, the civil war. Cromwell became one of the most brutal dictators in post-Medieval British history, and was not really any more minded towards such concepts as 'democracy', 'freedom for the people' or 'power to the people' than Longshanks!

The monarch and 'Head of State' is more or less a ceremonial figurehead, and has been for centuries. While they have some political influence, and the ear of the PM, they have no real effective power. The power clearly rests with parliament, and mostly with the House of Commons, which is elected by the people. The state of the armed forces before WWII was the responsibility of parliament, not the monarch - although it was a general problem across the continent, it is parliament that failed in that respect, not the 'Head of State', who does not (and did not pre-WWII) decide military funding levels, strategic priorities, planning or development.

The only 'power' (although it was very much decided by parliament in practise) that the Monarch did have was the act of actually declaring war, which he duly did when Nazi Germany invaded Poland.

__________________