It's Not Going To Make Me A Royalist But This Is The Most Reasonable Argument For An Admitted Monarch Over The Kind Of Thing Developing in the US

I am a life long anti-royalist, a radical egalitarian, a radical leveler.  I, especially, detest the American Anglophile fixation on the English monarchs, the kings and queens of England, something which New England is lousy with,  the largely false, largely crap "history" of most of the BBC costume dramas on that topic that PBS relied on to fill up time over the years.  I might have thoroughly liked to watch Glenda Jackson as Bloody Lizzie* but even at the time I knew that the "Good Queen Bess" was only a somewhat less murderous tyrant than her vile father and grandfathers had been, her sister Mary being, as William Cobbett pointed out, actually the least murderous and rapacious of the truly evil and vile Tudors.  Subsequent and previous English royals have, as well been the subject of such costume dramas when their actual histories are more in line with the most depraved of continental monarchs and those from Russia.

That said, the British Youtuber  I highly recommended as one of the best commentators on Brexit,  Phil of A Different Bias, put up one of the most reasonable and realistic defenses of Britain's modern constitutional monarchy that, compared to America's developing system of elected-court imposed kings, is far safer and far more reasonable in many ways.  I don't want no queen or king but he gave me a far better understanding of not only why Britain keeps one but why the alternatives might be at least as bad and are potentially far worse than the Brit royals,  what Republicans and the oligarchs are bringing about here.   At the very least, he makes some interesting arguments.

*  When I really want to feel better, I prefer to watch the old videos of Glenda Jackson MP, especially her remarks on the idea of honoring Margaret Thatcher when that oligarchic scumbag died and, hopefully, got her just deserts.