> Yes, all kings are bad by definition. (Brit here). Conceptually I agree with you. We've dodged a couple of bullets recently. The allegedly Nazi-sympathetic E

> Yes, all kings are bad by definition. (Brit here). Conceptually I agree with you. We've dodged a couple of bullets recently. The allegedly Nazi-sympathetic Edward 8th took himself out of play just before WW2 by marrying Wallis Simpson. It's only due to lottery of birth that we have King Charles now rather than King Andrew (who has a dubious reputation). But in practice I can't see how the UK could develop a credible alternative, without it being severely compromised in some way, either technically by having too much or too little power, or by being 'bought' by oligarchs or similar. The media hysteria would be horrendous. We would also have to agree on what the overall purpose of the replacement would be. Actual explicit power, some sort of governance role with respect to the UK parliamentary system (which is sort of the current set-up), or what. There are also practical issues like what to do with the existing Crown Estate, which owns a surprisingly varied range of things (including most of the UK's territorial seabed) and is one of the UK's largest property manager [0]. And the allegiance of the armed forces, etc. So for those reasons I don't think replacing the monarchy is the most pressing issue for the UK. YMMV, of course, in other countries where the UK monarch is represented by a locally chosen Governor. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate