The Russian Czar. They have quite a deal of nostalgia for the pre-Soviet days of the Russian Empire. A few years ago the remains of the Danish princess Dagmar, mother of the second last Czar, was transferred back to be buried in St. Petersburg, after the wish of the Russians. The ceremony attracted quite some interest, including the visit of Putin. The Greek royal family is also part Danish; and no fond memory of either the military junta or democracy, they might decide to retry the monarchy thing. Alternatively the Swedes might also decide to recall the Danish royalty, just because the Swedish royalty is such a bunch of goof heads.
Look at this smug little prick’s face. LOOK AT IT ! That’s royalty shining through and no mistake, guv’.
We still haveHigh Kings.
OP’s link is to the man who is the rightful King of Bavaria (except that that title was renounced during the turmoil of World War I). He also fits, genealogically, as the legitimate heir of the Scottish and English crowns except that that inheritance is voided by passing through a Roman Catholic. (Atheists, Zoroasterians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, etc. are all allowed but not Papists.)
The heir apparent of the heir presumptive of the heir presumptive of Franz of Bavaria is the 17-year old Joseph Wenzel Maximilian Maria, who is also the heir apparent of Liechtenstein. Thus, in the fantastic scenario one might imagine a future United Kingdom of Scotland and Liechtenstein. 
(Joseph won’t get Bavaria since it follows different inheritance rules.)
It is interesting, though logical, how often heirships unite. King James VI and I was the legitimate heir of both Robert the Bruce of Scots and, despite usurpations along the way, William the Conqueror.
As mentioned in another recent thread, Malcolm III of Scots married the legitimate heiress of Alfred the Great though, I think strictly speaking, the “legitimate” Kingship of the Scots later deviated when Robert the Bruce took the throne away from his Baliol cousins with the help of [del]Mel Gibson[/del] William Wallace.
They lost the throne in 1714, but they certainly didn’t die out in that year.
I like Hungary’s idea, between the wars, of restoring the monarchy without a monarch. Just call the President a Regent (for whom, no one knows) and be done with it. It saves the bother of sorting out pretenders. Plus it feels kind of Lord of the Rings-ish.
But are they horsefuckers? Pics or it didn’t happen.
I think the SNP’s plan for an independent Scotland includes retaining the current monarch, so independence shouldn’t give anyone else hope.
Frederick Forsyth wrote a rather good novel, Icon, whose central theme was the restoration of the Russian monarchy at the turn of the 21st century. In the story the new Czar was made a constitutional monarch rather than an absolute one as the Romanov dynasty had been. The character chosen to be Czar was an actual person - Prince Michael of Kent- who IRL happens to be both in line (distantly) for the British Crown and also a descendent of the Romanovs although not in direct line of succession to the historical Czars. Forsyth’s plot was so well-drawn that it made the restoration of the Czar seem entirely plausable. Which I suppose it is, although unlikely.
King Michael of Romania, deposed after WW2 is still living and although he has declared to have no interest in resuming the throne, has designated his eldest daughter, Princess Margarita heiress-presumptive to the throne should the Romanian people ever choose to restore their monarchy.
Given the recent turmoil in Greece, it is not entirely unlikely that a restoration of the Greek monarchy could occur. The Greeks seem to be rather ambiguous about it. They abolished the monarchy in 1924, re-established it again in 1935, then turned it out in 1973. Can’t seem to make up their minds. However, since a constitutional monarch is generally thought to provide a measure of long-term stability to a country and since Greece is badly in need of some kind of stability, it is at least possible that we could again see a king or queen of Greece.
SS
The Boneless King
Some Apes who had deposed their king fell at once into dissension and anarchy. In this strait they sent a Deputation to a neighbouring tribe to consult the Oldest and Wisest Ape in All the World.
“My children,” said the Oldest and Wisest Ape in All the World, when he had heard the Deputation, “you did right in ridding yourselves of tyranny, but your tribe is not sufficiently advanced to dispense with the forms of monarchy. Entice the tyrant back with fair promises, kill him and enthrone. The skeleton of even the most lawless despot makes a good constitutional sovereign.”
At this the Deputation was greatly abashed. “It is impossible,” they said, moving away; “our king has no skeleton; he was stuffed.”
– Ambrose Bierce
I don’t think the return of a monarchy is likely or desirable ANYWHERE in Europe.
The people certainly aren’t going to rise up and clamor for the rturn of any kings, and NOBODY would want to give a newly restored monarch any real power.
The one place I could ALMOST imagine a restored monarchy, however, is in Russia.
I know, even there, it’s a major longshot, but hear me out: the PEOPLE as a whole don’t have any urgent desire for a new tsar, but as Dr. Johnson put it, “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” And nobody is a bigger scoundrel than Vladimir Putin.
Putin’s thuggery and corruption can be overlooked as long as Russia is propspering, but when the economy goes south, Putin will HAVE to play the patriotic/nationalistic card big time. He’ll HAVE to try to whip the Russian people into a patriotic “us against the world” frenzy.
And so, somewhere down the road, he might think a powerless, figurehead tsar could be useful.
It worked out pretty well for Spain.
But it’s a Constitutional Monarchy.
And there’s no chance of constitutional monarchies appearing elsewhere?
Don’t see anything in the OP restricting this to absolute monarchies.
I used to go out with a Serb who supported the return of the monarchy. His argument was that restoring it would (a) mark a definitive break with the Milosevic era and legacy and (b) channel Serbian nationalism away from its more destructive elements by giving Serbs a more positive national symbol to rally around.
I got the distinct impression from him that most of the rest of Serbia thought this idea was nuts.
My take on the OP was the return of an absolute monarch, becasue most mentioned were AM.
Since “monarchy” just means “A state that has a monarch” we need to look at the definition of “monarch” itself.
Is North Korea a “monarchy”? Kim Jong-un will presumably be, like his father and grandfather, ruler “for life” so “hereditary right” certainly played a role in his succession.
Similarly, did Muammar Gaddafi have plans to pass his trillion-dollar property on to his son?
But I thought that was what OP meant. Spain welcomed their King back to escape from dictatorship, not to embrace it.
And maybe I’m old-fashioned but I like the idea of long hereditary chains. Before Cromwell, the power of English Kings was fairly absolute, yet they wanted to honor their grandparents, and leave their country in a state where they’d be honored by their grandchildren.
(And, hoping not to hijack the thread, it’s for similar reasons that magnates like the Rothschild family held power for over a century without succumbing to the allure of hiring greedy teenagers and letting them make foolish billion-dollar bets.)
All of it or a specific part? None of our secesionist movements are monarchic AFAIK, but it could make for an interesting twist. Do you look good in pics?
Which was the king who has been president of his country? I can’t remember right now. Oh yes, Simeon II of Bulgary.
I think he was PM of Bulgaria, not President.
Just to be clear, I meant monarchy. It could be absolute or constitutional (more likely) but I didn’t intend to limit it to absolute monarchism.