That would be an incorrect analysis. In a democractic government ala the US model one branch of government is opposed by another branch of government but both have a vested interest in the expansion of government power. Democracies labor under the illusion of "self-rule", even tho each citizen in a modern mass democracy represents a miniscule fraction of actual power. Somehow "We" are the government so whatever happens must be what "we" want. This has allowed democratic government to gain unprecedented power over the lives of its subjects.
The fact is in a monarchy everyone knows exactly who the government is and who is to be held accountable. Democracy is diffusion of responsibility. This understanding resulted in the following effects:
Tax rates in monarchial Europe never rose above 10%. Since WW I and the collapse of the ancien regime tax rates in all European countries and American have skyrocketed to 40% and higher.
The creation of fiat money - no monarch in history ever would have tried this. Well actually some tried, it never worked.
War between states has become total since the French revolution - since all citizens "enjoy" the protection of the State, they are responsible for its defense. This has resulted in the mass politicalization of society, nationalism, conscription and a host of horrors. ( Monarchy and War )
The monarchy is bound by the law, which is unchangable. There is no legislative power in monarchism. The monarch is rather the supreme judge, like a supreme court of sorts. This is his primary function.
The monarchy is balanced by the aristocracy who have a vested interest in limiting the power of the monarch. Finally, in Catholic monarchies, the best form the monarch is bound by the Church under pain of sin. Coronation is a sacrament of the Church and comes with duties to act as temporal father of a nation.
Perhaps if you understood monarchy better we could discuss it, but you have a maze of misconceptions.
I don't understand.
. What law, where did it come from, and what makes it unchangeable?
You say that in a monarchy that everyone knows who is responsible and that the monarch is bound by the law.
What and who holds this monarch accountable if they violate this law?
The only one that I'm familiar with in a small way that operated in such a manner is the Medo-Persian Empire.
In it was no fixed law but law by decree issued on a daily basis from the king, [who had his advisor's], to fit the situation, which then became unchangeable even by the king who issued it.
I'm not trying to be argumentative but as a history buff where governments are concerned I am truly interested.
Do you have any historical examples that made you prefer this type of system?
I find that throughout history all systems fail because they are administered by men and are easily corrupted.