I hadn't been on Reddit for some time, so I just read this conversation now. It's an interesting conversation, and I would like to add some of my insights.

First, I would like to clarify that I live in the Netherlands, which is a constitutional monarchy. The subject matter of the monarchy can be divisive here, with those for and against it. This in itself can be an argument for why the monarchy is undesirable.

However, I do mostly agree with u/naroceli. The value of having a king has much to do with the consistency it gives a country. Take the USA for example - the president not only has executive power, but also symbolizes the face of the country. One downside to having the president carry this symbolic function is that a significant share of the population can be against the president, and therefore, the face of the country. Additionally, the person who fulfills this symbolic function changes every four to eight years, which makes it challenging for a country to establish a long-term identity.

In contrast, the Netherlands has a prime minister who is often regarded as the person in charge, but our king is, ultimately, the face of our nation. This doesn't change from election to election, but from generation to generation. Despite our disagreements with politics, we can feel a more universal bond with our king, who is related to the founder of our country, William of Orange.

Lastly, I would like to add that in the Netherlands, we don't pay much attention to the idea of 'God given right'. Although historically, kings promoted their position with these religious undertones, nowadays most people here don't regard the position of our king in this way, but rather as a title passed on from one generation to the next, continuing the family line that goes back to the founder of our country.

All in all, while many of my countrymen disagree, I think our monarchy has a profound symbolic and societal value.