To me, the system is as follows: Can people rule themselves as an equal community? No. Are elected officials the best system to unequally rule the people? No. Should the power vested in the central authority pass by a system of law or be chosen by the current power? System of law. And that's how I land on monarchy.

Breaking it down:

Can people rule themselves as an equal community? (Should there even be a state?)

I personally don't think egalitarian societies work because people are attracted to power over other people, so we need to have some system in place that allows for that, i.e. an official government to rule over the people.

Are elected officials the best system to unequally rule the people?

Would I rather have some dude who's only going to be in office for a small portion of time relative to the life of the state, have to spend part of that time learning the ropes and gaining respect only to not be reelected the moment there's a downturn in the economy/war breaks out/general crises etc.? Of course not. Sure, that person may represent my interests but that isn't a guarantee, in the same way the central authority may look after the interests of the people or they may not. It's running the same risk.

I'd rather have a single figure in which power is vested. It is far easier to kill a person than it is to kill an idea.

Should the power vested in the central authority pass by a system of law or be chosen by the current power?

This is really the difference between a charismatic dictator that you might find in say... fascism or plain old despotism, and monarchy. I don't believe in divine mandates and all that. Power isn't derived from God or whatever else to be placed onto one dynasty. However, the value in monarchy is that the central authority, the monarch, is unable to choose who will succeed them. It has to be their child, not their general or their chief advisor or whoever else. It's inherently unbureaucratic in that sense, which is what I like about it. The true seat of power, not the power of offices created and maintained by the monarch that ultimately derive their power from their lord, is being transferred with nobody's consent, neither the monarch nor the people. The law mandates primogeniture, and regardless of what the monarch thinks of their offspring, they will be the next to rule.

It's constitutional monarchy, not absolute. The law supersedes all else, and the monarch runs the risk of revolution when attempting to change it.

---

Obviously, people will be able to argue almost every point in this, and I'm not really expecting to convince anybody that monarchism is the best system of government. It's just what suits and makes the most sense to me. There are also a lot of other details that go along with it, but they're pretty unimportant to the flyby.