Do you also try to make it rain by opening an umbrella?
You made a claim, I showed evidence that clearly showed it to be untrue. That doesn’t mean that I support the opposite of your theory, only that your claim didn’t stand up to scrutiny.
A constitutional monarchy with a largely symbolic monarch can be useful for democracies, as it prevents the Head of State role from being held by divisive figures. On the other hand, granting a hereditary ruler real powers over how a nation is run is a recipe for disaster. Both are “Monarchy”, but there’s a world of difference between them. Is North Korea a Monarchy? They say it isn’t, but it looks and acts like one. Is Denmark a Monarchy? Definitely, but it’s also one of the most democratic nations on earth.
Basically, it doesn’t matter who you put in the big palace to shake hands and give out prizes to worthy citizens, or how they get there, so long as your country is a strong enough democracy to prevent one person—any person—seizing too much power. If the UK has a democratic deficit, and it does, that’s not caused by it being a constitutional monarchy. Abolishing the monarch and electing a president would be worse until the underlying problems with the UK’s democracy were addressed, because you’d have nothing to prevent a President Johnson.