I find your position baffling tbh. Surely the solution is to not have parliamentary democracy that is messed up?

I mean, I literally said that several times in the post so I'm not sure why my position is baffling. I'm not advocating for a hereditary head of state, I'm just saying in the current climate, I'd rather have a fairly innocuous king or queen than another glorified popularity contest rooted in a flawed democracy. Of course the solution is to have a better democracy but a matter of years ago people voted against this exact issue. There's no hope of it changing any time soon.

So we should seek to reform this? (What do you consider to be the problems?)

FPTP is the first and most glaringly obvious problem with the system. Having any form of winner takes all in any scenario between more than two options means that minority almost always rules. We end up with the scenarios we have at the moment where the old can overpower the young by simple voting majority, despite the interests of the young having far wider and longer reaching circumstances.

Secondly, MPs are there by volition not because they are skilled in any area of expertise. Ministers should really be experts in their field along with a team of experts who can properly understand and debate an area of legal or social concern in an open forum. Wanting to run as a parliamentary candidate is one thing but a system which allows climate skeptics to be put in charge of climate change departments or private healthcare advocates to be in charge of social healthcare is at best...short sighted. The problem we are having as a country is short termist politics where a government only cares about the problems occurring in the their parliamentary cycle. Towards the end they focus almost exclusively on what will get them re-elected, not what the country needs. This is where the EU was so vital. They 'forced' sovereign governments to think longer term about issues which may not necessarily affect them. Now we're leaving the EU this problem is only going to get worse, not better.

Take a look around parliament and play the 'privately educated' game. Almost a third of MPs went to private school. If we're talking about abolishing the monarchy for not representing the common man, we're voluntarily electing people who are of similar social stratification to those we are 'ousting'. Almost half of MPs have degrees from Oxbridge or Russell Group universities, typically these universities are not about ability but family name, connections or funds available. They may well get a better education but that brings up another problem; why not everyone else? There could be some impressive minds locked into working class jobs simply because they weren't born to the right parents or more accurately, their parents didn't have the correct number of zeros in their bank account.

The problem at the end of the day is whether or not MPs are elected correctly in the first instance and then whether they are held accountable enough if they don't deliver on their promises or if they are even qualified enough to do the job they've been given. In the 18th century, it may have been easy enough just to run for parliament, get elected and do your job. We live in such a complex social world with a myriad of issues. Standing for election based on vague campaign promises hurts the voters at the end of the day and it's a practice that we almost glorify in our democracy. Then we have MPs making laws which exclude themselves (snooper's charter, among others). Who watches the watchmen? We've got a fairly unaccountable bunch of elected officials who can screw up and pay very little penalty except perhaps losing their seat at the next GE. Then they go back to their private careers with little lost face.

If we really want to end the social disjoin around our democracy, hyper-intelligent AI is likely to be the best solution. Something completely impartial, completely rigid but capable of debating and coming to informed conclusions without the threat of corruption, collusion or vested interest. Unfortunately people then shit the bed at the idea of the Matrix becoming very real. It's a valid concern but the way to address it is not to stall it's inevitable conclusion but to actively work on a better solution before it happens.