Regency as alternative to either monarchy or republic

No. I like the monarchy because of the heritage and rich history they represent. They’re powerless anyway so no need to remove them.

Formalities as they are, doesn't the monarchy have reserve powers? Plus, history books and museums exist for learning about the monarchy.

In theory but they rarely use them and in practice probably wouldn’t be able to exercise powers that didn’t receive approval from the government.

The existence of republican movements within monarchies is a good start for removing the remaining barriers to progress, but several sectors with vested interests in keeping the right-wing institution that is monarchy are either apathetic or stubborn enough to let go of a relic and symbol of dominance, but an alternative course should change all this.

This alternative form of government is the regency, which happens when someone serves as regent in the absence, death, minority, or incapacity of a monarch.

The type of regency in mind here isn't the regency similar to the one for George III during his final years.

In this scenario, current royal families would receive membership in orders of merit after regent replace the current monarchs.

This would retain the current form of the government in monarchies yet remove the monarchs as heads of state.

There would now be monarchies without monarchs, so to speak.

This is especially suitable for republics that used to be monarchies such as Serbia or France.

The precedents are not good.They tend to be used by monarchist dictators who think that the monarch is too liberal.

Look at Admiral Horthy and General Franco who were both regents for a throne they deliberately kept empty.

You might also look at the Carlist movement in Spain and the mental gymnastics they went through when their would be king didn't support their politics.

That need not be a problem, as the solution of a regency may being harmony between monarchists and republicans. Also, republics that used to be monarchies have no liberal monarchs to begin with, so the risk tends to be low. Even Peter Hitchens once suggested it as a middle way.

"progress"

lol calm down

It isn't a middle way as I have explained. It is a way to steal the support of monarchists without assuming the responsibilities of monarchs.

It doesn't seem to be a problem, as long as the regency remains respectful of liberal democracy.

Which history says they won't. As Churchill said "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot down the ages."