This democratic republic experiment seems to have gone awry. Maybe it's time for something more traditional.

This bandaid doesn't seem to be sticking to my leg. Maybe it's time to just amputate instead :-/

Point taken. Although the question of whether a monarchy is more stable than a republic is not so drastic as that. There are some very serious people who have kept the idea of monarchism alive through the American and French revolutions in the 18th century, the rise of socialist philosophy in the nineteenth century, the Russian Revolution and the First World War of the 20th century. As kings steadily lost power over the last 250 years there has been a small but committed band of monarchists repeating the refrain "this will not end well", their voices drowned out by the shouts of revolutionaries.

If the goal is stability for its own sake, which is always what power-holders want. If however the goal is the welfare of the people, it becomes a different question. Those who thought the French revolution did not end "well" never seemed to ask the question of how well it was for the millions of oppressed who finally said enough. It's like the bumper sticker says, if you want peace, work for justice. It's still lacking in the world today.

The question is, what is the welfare of the people? We are taught that the people were always oppressed by a power mad elite before the democratic revolutions, but history being written by the victors lacks objectivity. There were certainly bad monarchs, but not nearly all monarchs were bad. There were some principled revolutionaries, but there were also those who saw an opportunity to increase their own power and manipulated the populace into joining their cause while not giving one whit about the "welfare of the people". While we wave the flag and sing about freedom we in the west live in some of the most heavily regulated societies ever known. These so-called representative governments have more control over the day-to-day functioning of the citizens than a power mad king of the past could have dreamed of. The voting public is distracted by television, sports, social media, and all manner of entertainments. People align themselves unthinkingly within the false left/right narrative and the oligarchy continues. There is a case to be made for representative governments, but we who have grown up in them while being fed on the myths of the glorious revolutionaries and the tyrannical kings would do well to look at things from a more detached position.

I go back to my original metaphor: you don't amputate to fix the bandaid.
American DID have a thorough experience with a monarchy, - and rightly, soundly, totally rejected it. And so long as the free people retain their arms - which is the true reason why Hillary said we "should look at" Australia, we will NEVER be subjected to a monarchy - hereditary or otherwise - ever again. Only utter fools forget the lessons for which honest men and women paid in blood with their lives. If we do, we are unworthy and betray them.
The framers of the Constitution understood better than most the axiom it took another century later for Acton to articulate: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. They then did a brilliant trailblazing into a self-checking tripartite-structured republic, it has soundly stood the test of time, it suffers corruptions unknown even to this day from within and endures. Our problems do NOT come from structure, they come from the fact that others - corporations, overseas states - see this large powerful nation, whose success comes from its freedoms alone, as a cool tool and want to manipulate it for their own selfish ends. If we were - god forbid - subject to a monarchy, we would suffer the same problems, only instead in the form of parliamentary backbenching and ministerial jockeying.
Those who forget this costly lesson need to think on Churchill's aphorism on democracy: it's the worst system in the world - except for everything else. May we never foolishly forget.

Except that the American Revolution was sparked by taxes
The results of the Napoleonic wars meant that Britain needed to pay back all its debts. To get this money back, she started targeting America. America, being more or less autonomous, utterly despised this tax. They viewed it as injustice, and revolted against it
Yes, the Founding Fathers were anti-monarchist libertarians inspired by the Enlightenment. However, if not for Britain's taxes, we'd just have a disgruntled America being under the crown for many more years.
If we were to establish a monarchy, we'd have a ruler who was raised to rule. Rulers that weren't viewed positively were either literally retarded (Nero), or pushed into king-hood too early (Saint Nicholas II, who honestly wasn't even that bad. He just had his name slandered). A monarchy that does not learn from the past is destined to fail (like every other government), but a monarchy that does is one that will prosper. And it's not like monarchism was bad. 900 years of relative success in Europe alone seems like a good track record
Pic slightly related

Europe's a weak example at best. Most of them have bowed to the admission that hereditary claims to authority are bullsh*t (see Monty Python) and usually based on unacknowledged twisted theisms. Ergo their voluntary self-devolutions for the most part, save for any that play their own Richelieus.

Your meme is a wild stretch. It's "led," not lead; the "experts and not retards" is a fallacious crock disproved by history, which more closely resembles Game of Thrones than the common gushing fawning adulations; and "style is the fanciest" - well, I surrender, discussion over right there :::-/

The meme is funny, but not really meant to be taken seriously
It doesn't really matter if people think hereditary claims to authority are bullshit (although referendums of British territories all opted to stay under the crown). The main benefit into having a hereditary leader is that they're raised for it. Socrates, the father of democracy, couldn't imagine a democracy where anyone can vote and anyone can run. He likened it to a layman ordering a captain on what to do. If you claim that a republic mitigates this problem, then you have an easy opportunity for politicians to rally people up and not do as they promised (see much of democratic/republican history).

Based and redpilled