The UK-style constitutional monarchy can be argued as being in reality (rather than on paper) more democratic than the US-style republic: Although the "I may b

The UK-style constitutional monarchy can be argued as being in reality (rather than on paper) more democratic than the US-style republic: Although the "I may be one some day" point is true, its also very unrealistic to the point of being near-impossible; and in the UK case we aren't talking about a small percentage of the population (as in, eg. the US) that has the dreamed of status that won't ever be attained, just a handful of individuals who have it. That's just the ultra-billionaires and celebrities and doesn't take into account the clear familial traditions of those who are elected to run the country and their senior staff (Kennedys, Bushes, Trumps etc.). So its kind of comparing 10 people in the entire country (UK) who have a status that you know will never have vs several hundred (US) who have it; just the latter has a smaller-than-lottery (?) chance of the average Joe getting there compared to next-to-zero (revolution or massive constitutional change) of the former. Having established that the former set are "different", we then unify and either venerate them or revolt against them according to personal preference. When you then add in the regal mystique, charisma and authority granted to holders of office with actual power like, say, [fill in your bogeyman President here], having a separate unelected, symbolic but powerless national figurehead - who genuinely represents all of us - starts to look like a much more attractive - and democratic - proposition.