Thanks for the unexpected compliment.
I would go further and say that if, quite simply, everybody who holds any political office today (or at any other time) is told that he holds that office as his property as long as he wants it, and can bequeath it to his child -- our lives as private citizens will improve dramatically, this country will prosper in peace, the size fo government will be reduced over time drastically, and generally much if not all of the conservative agenda will be implemented in due course. That is because property is preserved and increased when it has an owner, and in a democracy the national infrastructure has no owner, only renters.
I think a similar point was made in a book entitled Democracy: The God that Failed. The point being that a permanent governing class has an incentive to preserve the country and hand it over to the next generation. Elected representatives/presidents etc. have only the incentive of short term political advantage with no concern for future generations at all.
H.H. Hoppe, a libertarian, grasped one, most materialistic reason for monarchy. The other reason is the role of a monarch as an embodiment of the national idea. For example, a monarch may see a national goal in fostering local government and democratic self-government, -- things that America understands and longs for intuitively, but contradict the selfish instinct of anyone in the actual business of governing. That is to say, while the governemnt -- feudal or democratic -- is in the business of governing, the monarch is in the business of recognizing and further shaping the national identity. Even the degenerate monarchies of today, such as the House of Windsor, work as a surrogate national parent. Note how the personal developments in the British monarchy come to matter something rather intangible but at the same time something very important to all Britons. American presidents fill a similar role out of necessity: Reagan morning the Challenger or egging on Gorbachev in Berlin, Clinton in Oklahoma City, W. Bush on the rubble of 9/11, -- but they are not well suited for it, because every time there is a 40% or more who listen to that and say "damn, that improves the bastard's ratings".
When American presidential candidate says "I want to be a president for all Americans" -- and they all do -- he is speaking nonsense. I am an American: I don't want to be for 4 years trying to move myself as far left as I can and in another 4 years moving myself as far right as I can, but these are the rational political goals of a President. Of course, the candidate does not mean that; what he means is "I want to be a king of America". But the truth is, he cannot be a king, that is why in 2 years he is back on the tube selling us more of his government at our expense. One cannot be a father figure one day and hustling an election the next.