You say that like its is the truth, but it isn't.
Democracies are not perfect, but neither is a Monarchy. The funny thing is that in ancient times of the first Democracies, they eventually fell apart and were replaced by Kings, but then eventually those disappeared only to be replaced yet again by Democracies and Republics.
Like Taris said it only takes one to mess it up. I just see Democracies as more stable, Monarchies seem to run on whim and hoping the leader is competent or him or hers children will be competent.
I also believe the people always deserve the right to choose, as a Government should never be above its people, only made by its people to serve it. If a King is willing to submit himself fully to his people, then its no longer a Monarchy.
Its fine though its interesting to talk about something that won't happen.
Oh, but it is!
As I stated before, I absolutely believe no government is perfect. And yet look at the majority of the republics that replaced the monarchies. Laos, Vietnam, Italy, China, Cameroon, Chad, South Africa, Congo, Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Greece, Indonesia, Cambodia, India, Burma and so many others. Not exactly a good track record for republicanism. Most have gone through violent revolutions, military coups, poverty, economic depression and genocide. Was the French Revolution worth the overthrow of the monarchy? Was Robispierre and the Reign of Terror really worth it? The Second Spanish Republic, supposedly because it's a republic it was enlightened and free, but yet more people died under the Second Spanish Republic then in the entire history of the Spanish Inquisition during the Spanish Empire. The US dismembering the Dutch Empire by forcing them to grant independence to the Dutch East Indies, ended in the independent Indonesian republic going throw civil war, poverty and economic depression, which is still going on. That's in contrast to the stable government and growing economy under Dutch rule. Decolonization, once again spearheaded by the US, was a total disaster. Almost every single independent African, Middle Eastern and Asian republic collapsed, and now they're third world excrementholes as opposed to when they were as part of the colonial empires. Even the American Revolution was a horrible affair, as the American Rebels showed absolutely no tolerance towards the Loyalists, despite espousing such things as freedom and liberty, so they kicked them out and seized their property, leaving them practically nothing. Greece and Italy are near collapse, but yet during the monarchies before, they were relatively stable and prosperous.
Now looks at today's modern monarchies. Norway, Sweden, Japan, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Monaco, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Denmark are doing pretty damn well compared to everyone else. Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Japan, Denmark, Canada, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand have been hit the least hardest by the recession compared to their neighbours. Monaco is one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Belgium right now is suffering from some growing ethnic tensions, but you know what's kept it together? The shared love and loyalty to the Belgian monarchy. The UK is going through a pretty excrementty time right now true, but if you asked anywhere there what they thought of Prime Minister Cameron, you wouldn't get very many kind words. Queen Elizabeth II? You'd get a lot of support, especially for Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge.
Look at the Caribbean nations that are still under Dutch rule. They have actual greater economic prosperity than their republican neighbours, heck they're even doing better than some of the British ones.
I'm sorry to say Necross, but republicanism is the far worse alternative to a monarchial government. All you have to do is look at world history and the present world to see I'm right.