>>65239
Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Bertrand de Jouvenel and Hans Hermann Hoppe all make good arguments for monarchy. Of course, Hoppe is still an ancap, not even an anarchomonarchist. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn believed that both monarchies and republics can be just, but called himself a christian anarchist. Not sure yet where de Jouvenel stands. Hans Adam II von Liechtenstein and his The State in the Third Millenium have already been mentioned.
As an ancap, the only possible stance on monarchy is to condemn it, but that doesn't mean you cannot point out that it's not as bad as democracy. As a libertarian who's not an anarchist, you can potentially accept any form of government, what's important is only that the people and the markets are free. Under a monarch, that's more likely to be the case than under a democratic regime. Of course, the popular wisdom is that nothing is worse than an "autocracy", but frankly, wisdom and popularity don't go along well anyway.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a natural aristocracy around, and not even if they had titles, as long as they wouldn't have special privileges that were enforcable. Same with having a king with no coercive powers. In fact, he could unite the nation, settle larger disputes, and give the people guidance. These are all potentially beneficial effects. A "voluntary democracy", on the other hand, would be largely worthless.
As to how likely a resurgence of monarchism is: Not very much. Just as an ancap-revolution is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future. Doesn't mean you shouldn't propagate your ideals. Life is not about transforming society, that's largely beyond the scope of any individual. What you can do is speak the truth and lead a good life.