a) The Scots have always been rebellious (it's what being Scottish is about), even when a Scottish king succeeded to the English throne. I don't see too many people nowadays trying to bring them to destruction (with the exception of bloody Salmond). My great-grandfather was a McLeod, by the way.
b) Accidents of birth happen, to one degree or another. Unless we want a drab, boring, mindless, cesspit of a society.
c) Queenie does bring in an awful lot of money - far more than she costs. I can't argue about the hangers-on, though, although Andrew and his daughters have just been put fairly and squarely in their place - so things are improving.
d) If you believe that the Queen has any real power at all to override the wishes of a democratically-elected government, you live in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
e) I note that an awful lot of citizens of the US - a republic if ever there was one - quite like the idea of a monarch.
f) Party-poopers get my goat.
g) I live in a village which was, until the 1920s, wholly owned by minor aristocracy. Now it isn't. And, as Dunc says, Scottish feu duties have been abolished.
I'm all for reducing the unearned birthrights of a dwindling number of people. But that's a process which is active now. A revolution would speed things up, but why bother? Change in Britain has almost always been incremental and, therefore, lasting. We got rid of a monarch once pretty sharpish (see what I did there?) but then reinstated the monarchy just as quickly.
Is there a law which states that the TITULAR, rather than executive, head of a republic must be elected?