[redgolum]

Royal absolutism existed before the Reformation. Take a look at the history surrounding the Crusades for example. Many of the Frankish nobles and "kings" did as they pleased, especially when they got to the Byzantine empire. One of the more basic aspects of the human conditions is that power can and will corrupt. The dangers of monarchies is that the number of people to corrupt is smaller, but the advantage is that if the monarch is just, they can help pull the nation back on the right path. A true republic can be just as corrupt, but the checks and balances can serve as a way to limit the amount of power any one group can get.
What is the best form of government? Hard to say. All have the possibility of abuse. A constitional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

[royalcello]

A constitutional monarchy can be a good form of government, so can a republic.

I don't really disagree, although I don't think "constitutional" has to mean that that the monarch has no power at all as is currently the case in the surviving European monarchies (except for Liechtenstein).

I (obviously) have a strong emotional preference for the trappings, customs, and philosophy of monarchy. However, I also recognize that different forms of government can be suitable for different countries depending on their heritages and traditions, which is why I do not advocate monarchy for the United States or Switzerland.