Of course, not all good monarchs have been deposed. And not all monarchs who have been deposed were good. But recent history (the last two hundred years is my time frame) suggests that being a good monarch is a practical liability. Too many vested interests.
One historian has suggested that successful revolutions do not usually occur when things are at their worst (e.g. Louis XIV), but when things are actually improving (Louis XVI, Tsar Nicholas II) because the situation is not improving fast enough for radical elements. And one of the hallmarks of an "improving" situation is the allowance of greater latitude in expression and association, thus permitting violent and subversive elements greater ability to communicate, organise, and rabble-rouse.
I agree on Louis XIV being horrible but I would not rate Nicholas II as a good monarch although until World War I( which was mostly Nicholas fault if not for him Austria would have taken over Serbia and that would be the end of it). Nicholas was of course better than the Bolsheviks.