As flawed as monarchies are the two main benefits of monarchies compared to "democracies" are the following:
1. In absolute monarchies the king is above the financial sector and can crush it at will. Look at the history of the French monarchy with how many times the French king expulsed the (((moneylenders))) from France.
2. The king is the one who holds power, not a cryptocracy composed of international bankers, secret services, multinational corporations and arms dealers ruling behind the scenes with fungible puppet front men we call politicians. It is therefore much easier to hold the king accountable than politicians who have no actual power and can be replaced at will.
"Democracies" always end up being kleptocracies in favour of a cabal of rootless elites since they can so easily be rigged by money.
That being said the world has changed and it would be extremely difficult for an absolute monarchy independent of (((their))) power to emerge in Europe or North America nowadays.
Absolute monarchy is an ideal, not a reality. In every monarchy and pseudo-monarchy in history, there are always elite factions struggling for control over the monarch, e.g. the military, clergy, nobility A, nobility B, ethnic groups, and the bankers. Saying that "absolute monarchy is my favorite government type" is as wishful as saying "enlightened democracy is my favorite government type". We all wish that monarchy is absolute, just like we wish all voters can be educated and literate.
Real example in history: you don't like the king, and therefore your faction supports the second son as being the heir, and you create a rebellion to instate him in power. Is this an absolute monarchy? Not really, since the "absolute" element of inheritance is sidestepped through factional support.