Why does it even matter? Does my opinion on the matter really necessitate bagging on it in two posts?
I meant the general construct of a monarchy. Not an absolute monarchy to the point of dictatorship.
Constitutional monarchies are known to be stable, cheaper than republics, less corrupt, and good for the economy because of a phenomenon called the ‘valley of tears’ – a period of stagnation after institutional reforms - doesn’t occur in monarchies. The fact that the role as a monarch is life-long (very few Monarchs abdicate) means they can’t be bought: they can’t gain more power without lots of rule changes in Parliament and they don’t need the money. That means they don’t have leaders cheating their way through polls (like Hilary Clinton) or promising things just to get elected.