I find the view expressed below fascinating. Massimo Pigliucci states it with uncommon vigour here, but the basic idea is common enough, particularly in the United States, where “king” is routinely treated as a synonym for “tyrant.”

Is it the word “king”? Is it assumed to carry all the baggage of undemocratic, unchecked, arbitrary executive authority that such titles commonly did in the past? But constitutional monarchists — like yours truly — don’t support any king who possesses such power.

We support kings (and queens) who play a symbolic role in the life of modern, democratic nations where real executive power is entirely wielded by elected officials — a role which becomes particularly important in times of emergency, such as the Second World War, when a number of monarchs became rallying points for their countries. What offence does their existence commit? Indeed, as we saw with King Charles’ speech to the US Congress, those same kings and queens can be effective advocates for the systems they represent, including liberal democracy, checks on executive authority, and the rule of law. Which is all to the good, one would think.

I can see not supporting a constitutional monarchy. But I can’t see being so righteously hostile to it. As for the list of “ignoble things a society can allow,” it’s pretty long, and given what is on top of that last — slavery, racism, genocide, bear-baiting, professional wrestling — I’m quite confident that monarchs, if they must be on the list at all, are not within a stone’s throw of the top.

(I’d like to have read the essay and written a proper response, with a link to the original post, but it’s paywalled and I can’t even RT it.)