Monarchy ... reinvigorated institution or just plain anachronism?

Dear all,

Can anyone imagine the existence of the Republic of Britain? It seems an eerie idea, very much as it would seem the possible emergence of the American Empire, with a crowned head occupying permanently the White House in Washington.
Anyway, most americans see monarchies more like a tourist attraction rather than a form of government, while some europeans see it as an anachronistic remnant of an ancient world of privilege and autocracy which has changed only enough to be tolerated by the modern concept of democracy. Well, fact is ... monarchies are indeed highly profitable when it comes to inherent tourism revenues but are, in fact, a sort of a continuation from a time where the populace had little or no power whatsoever to designate its leaders.
Nevertheless, a european monarch these days goes to bed every night without being totally reassured that there will still be a crown on his head the next morning. They have to be continuously popular and invest a lot of time in charity work, since their place as heads of state is just a referendum or a legislative session away from being taken from them.
No one can deny, however, that a monarch is a landmark in a country's identity and is also considered as a reason for pride and a sort of link to the nation's glorious past. In a Europe that is transforming itself more and more into a sort of a federative state of independent nations, many Europeans are firmly grasping everything that clearly serves them as an anchor for their identity as a country and as a people. This is why every single monarchy in Europe has acceptance rates of over 80%, while presidents and premiers hardly reach such percentages.
In other cases, a monarchy is a guarantee of a state's own survival. Most likely, countries such as Spain, Belgium or the United Kingdom would have already collapsed if there wasn't a monarch representing and unifying the entire country and the different communities. This is why Belgium trembled when late King Baudouin threaten to resign if forced to give royal assent to the newly abortion law then approved by the Belgian parliament.
Nowadays, in Germany, there is a widespread call for the reconstruction of royal and imperial palaces destroyed during World War II, since in many important cities little or nothing was left from Germany's glorious and historical past. In France, support for the monarchy has recently risen, accompanied by a renaissance in public opinion towards the martyred Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
Monarchies remain, however, highly unpopular in Italy and Greece, mainly due to the fact that, in Italy, the royal house of Savoy was considered collaborationist with Mussolini's dictatorship, while in Greece the royal family was of Danish origin and there has never been a single drop of Hellenic blood running in royal veins.
However, monarchies are also considered as a guarantor of political stability. Americans, who were taught a huge lesson when demanding the resignation of the German emperor at the end of World War I and thus leaving space for the rise of Adolf Hitler, allowed Japan to keep its emperor so to avoid the possibility of Japan falling again in a sort of medieval shogun fight for power. Alas, this lesson was rapidly forgotten in Afghanistan and in Iraq, leaving the position of head of state in these countries wide open for a religious fundamentalist to claim it latter on.
Given all this, is monarchy an institution that is doomed to disappear as time moves on? Probably yes, but in Europe, with the ever growing empowerment of the European Union's institutions, people in each country will hold up to everything that identifies them as a sovereign state, and there is nothing that assures that more than a King or a Queen.
It will be difficult for the monarchies that are already in the mist to rise once again, but it will also take some time for the still existing ones to join those in the misty forest of oblivion.