Better still, let the people pick who leads the country.
A flaw with that though is that then the leader of the country's executive branch has to waste time doing the ceremonial stuff that a monarch and their family do in monarchies. In the U.S., the president has to take time away from real work to "pardon" a turkey at Thanksgiving, host an egg roll at Easter, and entertain every head of state who visits. Much better to have a powerless figurehead handle that nonsense. Plus that frees the president/prime minister's family of having to be figureheads or celebrities.
Plenty of countries have an elected head of state, for ceremonial stuff and without power, and a prime minister etc as head of the government - the US is unusual in having rolled those two roles together. As someone from a country with such a set up, I can say I much prefer it - and I've lived in the UK and have that point of comparison. I was able to vote directly for the president, and (indirectly) for the PM. The two positions have attracted different types of personalities. It's a good way to go.
Having read this post and thought about it a little, I'm pretty sure that all this ceremonial faff is very American. European politicians don't have shows like that, trotting out the family, using said family for PR, doing ceremonial non-sense for holidays like "pardoning" a turkey (whilst eating another
), hosting banquets and all that. So a figurehead remains useless, and even if there's a need for a figurehead I'd rather elect one for set terms than have my money funnelled towards a whole family with no end in sight who belong to the 1% (thanks to looting from their adoring subjects). When a politician is over for a state visit, then they have to meet anyway with the domestic politician/s, when they can also lunch/ dine together. No need to trott out some ridiculously rich granny to put on her diamonds for that. And politicians, whilst also filling their pockets and looting from the people (thankfully usually for a decade max and not for life), do important work, but not 24/7. That means hosting other politicians is part of the work anyway and they can't sit all day and think about politics, that would fry anyone's brain and will to live within a week.
Even the UK's ceremonial stuff, the whole pageantry and that, has been introduced by Ed VII, Victoria's son, not all, but much of it. So it's not been around for that long. Stuff gets always introduced/ abolished, it's how society is. So they may as well cut much of it back. And where does it all come from? Often from jokes and "exclusive" clubs, i.e. look at the Garter thingy and its origin. One guy found it hilarious, made up some rules, had a laugh, and 100s of years later it's still going for no logical reason
PS Also all this stuff with royals and politicians also sees a ridiculous increase in honours. Everyone seems to be an OBE, MBE and similar, for no legit reason. A hairdresser, a singer, an actor, a secretary who's hushed away stuff and gets a gong... Where's the merit? Orders exist in European countries too, but rarely do celebs get them and they are not as, say, advertised as in the UK, so many really hardworking people get gongs and it means so much more. It's not a show, it's an honour and you have to work for it.