edit: I really don't care if this gets downvoted or not. The monarchy is a horrible institution to glorify and daylight saving time is just as awful. Neither of these have any relevancy in a modern age.
In the UK the Royal approval rating is something like 80%. In the US the Presidential approval rating is by design something like 50% because they’re party-political.
Our head of state represents us more satisfactorily than theirs. Doesn’t that make it a better system in practice?
If you want to have a purely ceremonial head of state, it could still be an elected elder statesman rather than an aristo "by god's grace" and "divine" right. I.e. the German/Austrian/Italian presidential model where the president exercises about as much real power as queen Liz (i.e. a once-a-year state of the union speech).
Or you go entirely without - since Liz refuses to use her corrective powers even in such blatant cases of procedural abuse like the proroguing of parliament, then the post is useless and the Prime Minister might as well be Head of State officially.
For example elected elder statesman such as Higgins: approval rating around 70%.
Prime Minister: approval rating around 34%.
The Queen has an approval rating around 80%, sometimes as high as 90%.
Charles, on the other hand... I suspect that the monarchy is always only two mediocre monarchs from abolition.
> Neither of these have any relevancy in a modern age.
The affect of light in the modern age is diminished?