1. Monarchies are pro-people. Monarchs represent all, while politicians are necessarily partisan and divisive.
Aristotle: “The idea of a king is to be a protector of the rich against unjust treatment, of the people against insult and oppression. Whereas a tyrant, as has often been repeated, has no regard to any public interest, except as conducive to his private ends; his aim is pleasure, the aim of a king, honor. Wherefore also in their desires they differ; the tyrant is desirous of riches, the king, of what brings honor. And the guards of a king are citizens, but of a tyrant mercenaries.” (Politics, Book 5, Section 10)
Hilaire Belloc: “You must have one man sufficiently removed from temptation by his own absolute position and vested with sufficient powers, able to act with sufficient rapidity. That one man is a concrete object. He can be got at by the people. He can be blamed or praised. He knows that he is responsible. He cannot shift his burden on to some anonymous and intangible culprit. And that, in itself, apart from the natural indifference and therefore impartiality of one who is above bribery and above blackmail, through his control of national wealth and power, is a vast force in favour of just government.” (The House of Commons and Monarchy, p. 179-180)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe: “Confronted with an almost insurmountable barrier in the way of upward mobility, the solidarity among the ruled — their mutual identification as actual or potential victims of governmental property rights violations — is strengthened, and the risk to the ruling class of losing its legitimacy as the result of increased exploitation is heightened.” (Democracy: The God That Failed, p. 47)
2. Monarchical tyranny is more easily corrected.
If the people are corrupt, then so is the democracy. In monarchy, either the people or the monarch can check the other. Democracy gives the illusion of control of the masses, keeping them happy while hurting them. Joe Sobran said, “As the old saying has it, ‘If voting could change anything, it would be illegal.’ It already is. Opting out of the system would be the most meaningful ‘vote’ imaginable, sending our rulers a real message; so, naturally, it’s illegal. Low voter turnout doesn’t bother them at all; low taxpayer turnout would be another matter.”
To also quote Sir Charles Coulombe, “The fact is that people have the illusion of control, and so they accept treatment that they would never accept from a hereditary monarch. If our Constitution was altered in one respect, if the Presidency was made into a hereditary monarchy — with precisely the same powers outlined that he has in the Constitution — I guarantee you he wouldn’t be allowed to exercise more than what’s in the Constitution, because people have an immediate suspicion of anything hereditary. But they’ll swallow anything elected, right in the mouth. It’s amazing!”
In more traditional systems, where militias of armed citizens can overwhelm any separate, professional military class, it is even easier to revolt. The former power rests on substantial sovereignty, while the latter depends on fickle government favor. Therefore, which is the more motivated party is not hard to guess. Stephen P. Halbrook notes, “Because no free man submits to a tyrant and because rule without consent is neither rightful nor legal, Aristotle deemed arms possession a requisite to obtain or to maintain the status of being a freeman and citizen” (That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, p. 8).
With all of this, one should also note that the monarch has no reason to oppress, because he has no need to gain more domestic power. He is already comfortable in his already ultimate authority.
3. Monarchs are born to rule, instead of merely happening to rule. There is inherent emphasis on family, continuity and tradition, and stability — and there is far, far less on time preference. All of this helps in the oaks vs. sandboxes dilemma.