I just spent a good chunk of this morning perusing an interesting blog I hadn't come across before, The Anti-Democracy Activist. While I don't endorse every viewpoint this writer expresses, there's much to agree with and his work is certainly worth reading.
Going back to my 2003 article "Two Kinds of Monarchists," I've long thought that monarchism comprises at least two distinct elements, which as an alternative to "neo" and "paleo" might be called "cuddly" ("OMG Prince George is so adorable!") and "non-cuddly" ("Thank God Franco won the Spanish Civil War!"). It has always been my position that both are necessary, and that monarchists drawn more to one side should not scorn the other. Without the former, monarchism loses its potential appeal to ordinary people; without the latter, it is impotent. This anti-democracy blog, and the neo-reactionary movement generally, are useful additions to the "non-cuddly" side, but that doesn't mean we have to stop appreciating things like charming photos of the Danish royal family.
However, a less complementary way to express the dichotomy is that perhaps there are two kinds of monarchists: those who think that republican scum like Peter Tatchell are wrong when they argue that even a symbolic constitutional monarchy is incompatible with the [democratic and egalitarian] prevailing values of our time, and those of us who think that (painful as it is to admit it) Tatchell and his allies are logically correct but the problem is with the prevailing values of our time.