I think you miss the major difference between the two, and the one that makes monarchy even more appealing: in monarchy, there is a private "ownership" or title of/to rulership, where as in democracy there is public title to the "right" to rule. A monarch can trasfer his title, sell it, pass it down in his will, and he benefits from "his" subjects prospering: the king's title to power increases in value if the kingdom is more wealthy, and his (future) tax revenue is larger. In a democracy, the current ruler will try to consume as much wealth as possible, even though it will decrease both the overall value of the country and the future revenues, the reason being that he is simply a "steward" or "caretaker", and does not really posses the right of rule: he may not pass it down to his children, he cannot sell or give away his rulership, and not engaging in capital consumption, instead of increasing his wealth, would only deny him it. The value of the country is of not of use to him; the democratic ruler will only rule for a short period of time, and in the interest of maximizing his profit will take as much as the people will tolerate. Hans Hermann-Hoppe, in his book From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy, which I would highly recommend, goes into this comparison in depth, and explains these concepts much better than I could.