Avoiding personal stuff, I would make a comment on this. I am a monarchist, but I am not sure I would be a loyalist two hundred-plus years ago. Colonial rule is a good idea for an ethnos uncapable of nation-building on its own. Like a good parent raises a child in order to emancipate him, a good monarch would colonize a country in order to build a nation, at which point the former colony would peacefully secede. King George missed that point with the American colonies, which reached nationhood by mid 18c.
On the other hand, and perhaps not without the American experience in mind, Britain and France should have fought harder for their possessions in Africa, which to this day are a savage mess without a colonial master.
Countries are like people. The mistake the West is prone to make is to think that a social formula that worked for one country for some time is the social formula for all countries for all times. The only social formula that works forever is protection of individual rights, -- a.k.a. freedom. Usually, that is best accomplished in a monarchy, but like a family a monarchy owes her subjects flexibility and goodwill.
Freedom is not slavery to an aristocracy Emperor Norton II.
Our foundational principles, besides killing boot licking Monarchists, is that all men are endowed with equal rights. That was the philosophy that marked the END of the Monarchy age.
And you can hand draw all the currency you want - it is NEVER coming back.
Men worthy of the name will NEVER AGAIN bow down to a King.
Only servile putrid bootlickers unworthy of the name and bereft of higher virtues would do so.