There is like zero evidence that a hereditary ruling class is especially suited for and/or actually has done protecting the minority from majoritarian tyranny. I have no idea how one can hold this position in earnest.
Agreed, I'd even argue that the opposite statement is true. The divide between the top and bottom is wider than ever in the UK.
People grow up in insular little bubbles. Everyone thinks they are the bottom rung on the social ladder. They think "if I'm doing fine then everyone else must be doing much better!" and hand wave away uncomfortable truths. That kind of classism is at the core of British society.
Ironically, I don't think it is always malice, but naivety and rigidity. The monarchy and the nationalist sentiments they have spent decades cultivating have become part of peoples' identity, and it's hard to reason people into changing their identity.
There one type of tyranny the role of a hereditary constitutional monarch with purely symbolic powers protects against is the tyranny of a [hereditary] monarch with significant or unlimited power...
(As well as the constitutional role of the monarch being designed to protect the British public from monarchs, the continued existence of crown-wearing, palace-dwelling hereditary heads of state probably has a little bit of actual positive influence overseas by reminding some hereditary rulers with actual power that keeping fancy titles and wealth is entirely compatible with allow people to elect representatives to do mundane stuff like passing legislation and running the country)
There's certainly no basis for assuming that protecting minorities has ever been part of the role of the British monarchy though. On the contrary, last time we had a monarch with a deep personal interest in protecting a particular minority (James II, Catholics) we got rid of him.
