Inevitability of Republics?

Here's a good question that many republicans in the Commonwealth these days seem rather quick to avoid: WHY is a republic inevitable in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, even Britain? What makes a republc inevitable? How is the march of republicanism so supposedly unstoppable? We at the Monarchist certainly don't see it as inevitable, as we resist it at every turn, to the best of our abilities. So why, then, is there this perception that republics are inevitable?

Turning our gaze to history, it rather seems to me that the fall of republics is inevitable. Rome started out as a republic, but when a suitably strong single figure emerged from the ceaseless infighting of a republic in crisis, Octavian in Rome's case, it became a rather fair, pseudo-constitutional monarchy of a sort. That is, until the Emperors became rather more... forward with their power, later in the Empire's history. The English Republic of the two Cromwells was rather short-lived. France would be the most famous example of this occurance, it's republics having been toppled by external and internal pressures no less than three times. Spain has been a republic twice, and both times the republic fell, and the monarchy restored (though the dictator Franco did not allow a monarch until 1975). And let us not forget the fall of the Weimar Republic that allowed the rise of Hitler. A republic seems a rather unstable thing to me. The only one two that have truly stood a test of time have been Switzerland and the United States, and one of those is rather insignificant on the world stage. And the American Republic has had it's brushes with destruction as well, witness the American Civil War.

So why, then, is the American system of republic seen as something implacable and unstoppable. Once, people thought that communism was the same way, and that did not spread across the civilized world as people thought it would. So why, then, do the people of New Zealand and Australia, and even Canada and Britain think that a republic will eventually happen? I mean, it's not as if we are somehow oppressed by our distant Monarch. The Royal Family costs us nothing, and provides a vast array of benefits in return, which are too numerous to list here, and indeed have been ennumerated several times before here at the Monarchist. What is this obsessing with streamlining and cutting down, of 'trimming the fat' of society, as it where? Of removing everything that isn't strictly necessary. It is true that our democracies would get along without Her Majesty, they'd be damaged and malfunctioning, but they'd get along. To go back to my metaphor of food, imagine that you are sitting in a fine restaurant. You have ordered the prime rib. Now imagine that your meal arrives and you discover than some overly-judicious and health-conscious cook has trimmed every last bit of fat from your prime rib, as well as deprived your table of butter and salt with which to season your roast potato, and you have been robbed of any Yorkshire pudding. Perhaps, in the strictest sense, this is 'healthier' for you, but will you not have been robbed of much flavour, taste and enjoyment in your meal? The same is true of a monarchy that has been 'republic-ized'. Sure, maybe things will be a bit more efficient, but will things truly be better if the aristocracy of peerages and royalty is replaced with that of Hollywood and the media? Will things be better with the 'Australian Republican Guard' rather than the Royal Australian Regiment? We will lose so many of the little niceties and finer points of life by transforming into a typical gormless, feckless, unadorned republic.

And we would lose the Duke of Edinburgh, and his delightful vocalness and frankness about his views. And who would want to live in a world where such a gentleman as he is not in the public view?

In any case, I pose the question to you, Monarchists, why do you think republics are perceived as an inevitable step 'forward'?