My own preference in monarchs is Charles I (Stuart) of England who was beheaded by Cromwell and his power drunk criminal ruffians sometime around 1640 or 1650. His scaffold speech in defense of divine right monarchy exercised on behalf of the liberties of the most despised citizens as well as the least despised citizens is magnificent and might have made a monarchist out of you. His exit line directed at the revolting Roundheads was: "Never let it be laid to your charges, sirs, that I was the martyr of the people."
Of course, Charles I WAS required by law to be an Anglican and the head of that Church. Fat lot of good it did him in the presence of Cromwell's blade! The British monarchy reached its high point during his reign and that of his son Charles II. It has been downhill ever since. Charles II triumphantly returned to London after Cromwell's demise, chased Cromwell's spawn from power, had Oliver Cromwell exhumed and posthumously beheaded, hanged his head from a tripod outside the gates to the City of London, where it swung in the breeze for some years and then disappeared in a storm. Legend has it that the head was then recovered by royal agents and delivered to Charles, thoroughly cleaned up, covered with silver and turned into a drinking cup for the Stuart monarchs and that it is now in possession of Lizzie II. I hope the legend is true for, while I care little for Lizzie II (she is an awful liberal), I care a LOT less for the awful Cromwell.
Charles II also issued a proscription list of the 80 or 90 Cromwellian colonels who signed the death warrant requiring the murdering by headsman's axe of Charles I (they would say execution), promising a large sum of reward money for the head of each. If the head and its possessor were still alive so that His Majesty might have the personal pleasure of dealing with that individual murderer personally, the reward was doubled. They did not call Charles II "The Merry Monarch" for nothing. His mere memory makes me merry to this day.
Nonetheless, in the absence of Charles I or Charles II, I am overwhelmingly likely to prefer a democratic republic with a functioning bill of rights and certainly over anything imagined by Droleskey, et al. Life is less colorful in a democratic republic but it works for me and it sounds like a plan!
I also wonder about the effects of California. Maybe Barbara Boxer has spent too much time in Washington, DC, and needs time at home (like the rest of her life) to restore her mellow. Maybe Droleskey can run for the Senate on the SSPX ticket against DiFi. He can try and translate that monarchy idea into reality on a national scale. Maybe that is too much. He could run against Ahhhhnold on a platform of restoring the California Republic. No, that won't work as a monarchy. He could declare California independent and a monarchy under whom? Bishop Fellay! Give the peasants a few weeks to convert before the auto da fes begin just to show that Tom is a real sport. Potential converts can be sent through cyberspace to Tom's "university" online for their re-education camp experience. Unhappy campers will still be subject to a salutary execution as infidels.
Also: did you know that Tom has actually published in one of the fever swamp journals of schism like the Remnant or "Catholic" Family News that, though he has been a lifelong fan of the New York Mets (As a Yankee fan, I never, even momentarily, doubted this claim of Tom), Tom now believes that attending baseball games (and probably watching them on TV) is a grave hazard to one's moral health. You see it takes you away from non-stop pretentiousness or some such thing. Actually, I think he claims that baseball takes your mind off otherworldly things. Can you imagine what fun Tom must be at a barbeque or a beach party or at a wedding reception or at an inquisition or at any other normal social event?
There was a time when I would have angrily defended Queen Elizabeth II to you; however, I must admit that I myself was rather disconcerted by HM's multiculturalist 2004 Christmas address. However, one must learn to separate the office from the person. Abandoning monarchism because Queen Elizabeth II is not exactly Queen Elizabeth I (which is perhaps a good thing from a Catholic point of view) would make about as much sense as abandoning Catholicism because Pope John Paul II is not exactly Pope St. Pius X.