Really? Which historical record is that? For over 200 years we have being living with the "Whig interpetation" of history, supplemented in the last 50 years by a Marxist view. If you get your history from public school textbooks and the history channel you have been profoundly misled.
Let's attack this logically for a minute.
Principle 1
we know the left,with their willing accomplicies in the media and the education system, lie to and mislead people as a matter of course to achieve their goals. In fact this is a basic tenet of leftism as expoused by Lenin and Marx.
I don't think hardly anyone disagrees with this assertion - I could do a quick search on FR and find probably 1000s of articles that articulate this exact point, so lets call it a priori (does not need to be proved)
Principle 2
We live in a two party, winner take all, democratic (this is the method - one person, one vote, universal sufferage over 18) republic (this is the form). In order to obtain and maintain their power the Democrat party lies to and misleads the people, I'm sure very few here would disagree with this, it's well documented and again I could find 1000s of articles on FR saying the same thing. So we can call that a priori as well.
So why is the GOP different?
When you view something on CNN do you not react with suspicion, and correctly so?
Why is FOX different?
Are those who are alleged to be "conservative" saints? Do they not desire power in our system?
Are they not capable of propogandizing?
Some people then look at this development and argue that monarchy is an inherently moderate and pacific form of government. If you look back at history, you see that that wasn't always the case. It's only because monarchs are so insecure on their thrones -- only because divine right isn't an accepted theory any more -- that monarchs are no danger.
An attempt is made to ground this idea in economics. It's argued that as "owners" of the country kings are more likely to be responsible in increasing wealth, as opposed to republican politicians who will squander the wealth that they only have access to for a few years. But again, when hereditary rulers have been secure in their "ownership" of their countries they could be quite spendthrift and wasteful.
It's not some overriding economic calculation that restrains monarchs. It's the countervailing power of popular assemblies and the fear of revolution. And it's by no means true that all monarchs were restrained by such checks.
One could make an argument that in republics citizens are led to think that the people are waging war or taxing themselves, and thus the electorate goes bears greater war losses and endures higher taxes in the belief that it's imposed such burdens on itself. That's a legitimate argument. But there are problems with it.
Kings and emperors get countries into ruinous wars and irritating fiscal crises. Eventually they are overthrown. In the next generation the limits of what the people will allow are higher, so are taxes and war casualties. But I doubt you can abstract monarchy out of history and make it the solution, when it's part of the process.
Hitler and Stalin were more destructive than any Hohenzollern, Hapsburg or Romanov, but it was such dynastic houses that gave us the First World War (and the support of the Italian royal family and German princelings for Mussolini and Hitler shouldn't be forgotten). In 1918 few would argue that a system that others believed had led to 20 million deaths should be retained lest 50 million die in the next generation. Presenting a theory that monarchy is better doesn't do much if you're living at a time when monarchs have done so much harm.
Republics like Greece and Italy are less stable than monarchies like Holland or Sweden. But it's not monarchy that makes them stable. It's that those populations are more generally phlegmatic and unexcitable (and those monarchies have long since been chastised and tamed -- they aren't the old Vasas waging trying to conquer Russia or alien Hapsburgs committing atrocities in the Low Countries. When Greece and Italy had monarchies they weren't any more stable or under control. Monarchy may have done something for Spain in recent years, but in previous centuries our judgement of the Spanish monarchy would have been far less positive.
I'm not anti-monarchy. It has worked in some situations and it won't do to prejudge the case. I'm against the pseudo-scientific theory that somehow monarchy is inherently better than republican government. It's based on too narrow and too selectively chosen a sample of history. It's junk social science.