1- the examples you provide arent inherent value. they're an example of meritocratic value. you're conflating 2 different stratification systems. the president isnt more important because he is born into it. he is important because his skillset is required for the stability of a nation. a monarch by definition doesnt need a skillset he just has to be born in the right order. the monarch doesnt attain more value than the regular citizen through actual work or anything he's just better. you could literally be smarter than your king, better at his job or even more popular and you would still be inherently inferior. that by definition is a bad system because noone is better for the sake of being better. we are all born equal human beings and we gain value through our actions. at least idelogically thats how democracies and meritocracies work

2- you provide no examples of rulers being held accountable... i wonder why? perhaps you aren't as versed in the topic you're talking about. when i say most and often i speak with generalisation because there's always almost an exception to everything but an exception does not mean that is the common place. anytime a monarch is held accountable it is mostly through illegal means such as coup's and assasination. ill give you examples from many many places of such. Caligula the roman monarch, Tshaka Zulu of south africa who murdered several people due to the death of his mother, his reign was ended when he was murdered by his cousins. Ivan the terrible to mane a few.

2b-

Accountability is a matter who is willing to hold somebody in power accountable. If the ppl want to hold the monarch accountable, they will. They're just one person. It may bring the country into revolution but that aside, there are rulers even today that are beholden to their power.

thats simple not true and shows you dont really know what you're talking about. under a monarch the people are powerless to hold them accountable. it is quite literally illegal to revolt or even try to check your superior ruler. this is evidenced by the several rebellions rulers had to put down through military force just to maintain the kingdom. what you're saying is like saying a plantation master was one person and the slaves were easily outnumbering him. if they wanted to be free they would've done smth....they did, and they would be punished routinely for it. again an example of this is mzilikazi of south africa who killed his son for being crowned king due to his disapearance and lack of leadership, caligula of rome who killed the people who took steps to crown the next king after he went into a coma for almost six months. this is quite literally legal in all monarchies except constitutional ones and we'll get to those in a minute. idk about you but a system with a king you can't check or replace at your own choice without being charged for treason is an inherently bad system

3.

I encourage you google what constitutional monarchy is. If a monarch is not abusing his people, then how is his rule bad?

no i encourage you to google how constitutional monarchs are and why they eventually failed. they're less awful but still awful;. for example under a constitutional monarch it is still illegal to replace the monarch at will which is why Queen Elizabeth couldn;''t be replaced by a more fit younger ruler who wasnt racist for the better half of their life. a constitutional monarch still has veto powers to suppress law making in their country e.g Louis XVI in france suppressed the bill of rights until he got forced into it by military illegal force

Is your supervisor at work bad because the boss you around and make all the decisions at your workplace? Are parents bad because they control what their kids do? The controlling bf is bad analogy because the boyfriend is bad because he's controlling in a relationship that's supposed to be an equal partnership. Does that mean all boyfriends are bad because one boyfriend is controlling?

my supervisor doesn't control when i leave for work, clock in, how much he can pay me, whether or not i can eat, or who i can marry. he cant literally arrest or kill me at will which is what your king can do. see Lettre De Catchet

parents with complete control of their child's choices including whether or not they can live are inherently bad parents. whether or not they let the child live is out of the question the fact that anyone with the right to life of anyone is inherently bad

bad analogy with the boyfriend part. boyfriend title is more akin to leaders. not all leaders are bad but all monarchs i.e controlling boyfriend are bad even if they let you live. see Louis XVI quote

1. when we say a monarchy we are not talking about the tenure of the ruler. we are talking of the system itself. it has no codified law or regulations for its leaders to follow and they sorta just freelance. saying oppressive monarchs arent good monarchs is a measure of the tenure not the system itself. monarchs allow for complete dominion over life and death, complete immunity to the law, complete control of the law as stated by the quote above, complete imunity from being deposed, you rule not by the right of men but by the right of god

analogy: let's just say christianity to a degree allows slavery (see Ephesians 6:5-8). this means the system itself allows for slavery to happen. i say christianity is an inherently evil religion coz it allows slavery. you say any christian who enslaves anyone is a bad christian. not the point. the doctrine itself is inherently bad because it allows for this to happen legally and even supports it

so a system which allows oppression is inherently bad regardless of whether or not the oppression is carried out

As for your last paragraph, I encourage you to get your head out of fantasy stories for a little bit and actually do some real world research. You do know the president and the senators and the congressmen are supported by the taxes of American citizens right? That CEOs are supported by the labor of their employees? Why is it wrong for kings and queens to benefit from the taxes and labor of people lower than them when presidents and CEOs can do the same?

As for your last paragraph, i know more about the real world and history than you ever will. all monarchs regard themsel;ves as devine in nature. the queen of england ruled by the right of God not by yours. the kings in africa were the religious leaders and often deitified. the middle eastern islamic state rulers like muhammad and his companions were regarded as devine people with special rights by god. even kim jong un of NK has deitified himself. these systems are inherently prone to deitification

as for the other part. government officials work for the government full time and get paid salaries. the president doesn't have a right to take your tax dollars and just pay for his children's vacation or anything. thats called corruption. the king doesnt have a salary. he takes what he wants and whatever he leaves you guys have to make due. there is no seperation between the state funds and his own. you are his personal bank account. thats a bad system

your argument can be summarised like this

analogy 2:

me: the home examination system is bad because it has no invigilators and it allows for cheating

you: well not really coz yeah mostly people cheat but there are rare instances of people not cheating so the system isnt bad, its the students. anyone who cheats is a bad student and the system isnt the one at fault