I realize you mean the pitchforks as a joke, but if that’s the automatic reaction to any speculative discussion of alternatives to monarchy, what hope is there? There are alternatives to royalty, monarchy and aristocracy that don’t automatically involve mobs and the guillotine. These alternatives are well established: just look around Europe for starters. (Let’s assume the Head of State is called President.)
Option 1: figurehead President, as in Germany. No real powers, represents the country abroad, inaugurates stuff, asks election winner to form a government... At best acts as a benevolent conscience of the Nation, at worst does nothing much. Essentially what QE2 does.
Why bother?
- Would do it at a fraction of the cost and with few immobilized assets.
- Can be removed in case of trouble, ill health, senility, impropriety, scandal, etc.
- Clear separation of Church and State
- Elected rather than anointed; by the upper house, or by the lower house. In the case of the UK possibly by the HoL, assuming that’s tidied up in the meantime (removal of bishops, hereditary peers, etc.). Or could be designated by rotation among heads of regions (as in Switzerland) or constituent nations...
- Fringe benefit: tabloids would hate it
Option 2: President with limited foreign and/or domestic powers added to option 1. See Finland, Ireland or Italy for interesting examples. The Finnish President is the Commander in Chief and has a vestigial foreign policy role (from the Kekkonen days) although this is shrinking as successive PMs carve out increasing prerogatives, the way they all do. The Italian President has a key role in asking prime ministers to form a government, not a trivial matter in Italy.
Why bother?
- Limit the accumulation of power by PMs (such as the recent power grab vs. Parluament, Henry VIII powers and similar nonsense etc.)
- Guardian of the Constitution role as in IRL
- Can be directly elected by hoi polloi (as in Finland or Ireland) or by Parliament
Option 3: President with more extended executive powers, with clear separation of competencies between President (“regal” matters) and PM (economy, domestic matters, etc.). To be researched...
Option 4: President with extensive executive powers, as in France. President steers policy in addition to being head of state. PM is designated by the President and serves at his mercy, essentially in an implementation role, and serves as a circuit breaker when the government becomes unpopular. Not a good option for the UK, assuming the country wants to maintain the preeminence of Parliament.
I’m sure it’s not difficult to come up with more.