[Dalberg-Acton]

I read that Hamilton wanted an "elective monarchy".
From the Wikipedia:

An attempt to create an elective monarchy in the United States failed. Alexander Hamilton argued in a long speech before the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that the President of the United States should be an elective monarch, ruling for "good behavior" (i.e., for life, unless impeached) and with extensive powers. Hamilton believed that elective monarchs had sufficient power domestically to resist foreign corruption, yet there was enough domestic control over their behavior to prevent tyranny at home.[3] His proposal was resoundingly voted down in favor of a four-year term with the possibility of reelection. In his later defense of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, he often hints that a lifetime executive might be better, even as he praises the system with the four-year term.

[rlmorel]

Yes...and Adams was accused of being a monarchist.

Given what he wrote in the Federalist Papers, it is seems likely to me that he had a change of heart.

If he didn’t have a change of heart, he was one heck of an intellect to take the stand he did so persuasively if he didn’t support it, because that is a tough thing to do.

[GeronL]

I guess he had a normalcy bias when it came to a monarchy

[Jacquerie]

The mixed government of Great Britain was widely admired, by anti-federalist patriots no less than John Adams and Patrick Henry. Hamilton was not derided by fellow delegates after his speech on June 18th 1787.

The ideas presented at the constitutional convention ranged from next to no government under the existing Articles of Confederation to Hamilton's sketch. All had the best interests of the United States in mind.