I'm glad you do not object to the British monarchy. But that monarchy's total lack of power has allowed Tony Blair and New Labour to run roughshod over the constitution (demonstrating a total lack of respect for Britain's heritage), erode the country's independence in favour of the EU, and unleash previously unimagined authoritaranism, with deplorable consequences to British civil liberties, as exemplified by the absurd fox-hunting ban.
Ideally, I would prefer a system in which both the Crown and Parliament had real power, each acting as a check on the other. Britain actually more or less operated this way for many centuries before the Crown was totally emasculated. It is a myth that traditional monarchists like me want to "entrust power to a single individual." The power of medieval monarchs, while theoretically supreme, was in practice rather severely limited and decentralized, by the aristocracy, the Church, and common law. Royal absolutism of the Louis XIV variety developed as a byproduct of the Protestant "Reformation."
Ah, yes. The aristocracy "limited" the monarch when he wasn't greasing their palms. The Church "limited" the monarch when, well, he wasn't acceding to the wishes of whichever powerful Cardinal or Bishop was the local Pope.
As for "common law," that's laughable. It was ignored, on a regular basis.
For all the faults of the American Constitutional Republic, every single individual in authority is answerable, ultimately, to the people.
Imperfect? Yes. Preferable? Absolutely.