>>96759
>This is why succession law is important.
Succession laws can be changed or ignored: such often happened in Britain.
>>96761
Given my (relative-at-least) ignorance on the matter, I'm not posting with certainty or boldness.
Nonetheless, when you post about monarchies—i.e. governments headed by a strong (i.e. lots of legal and political power, if not always strength in personality) ruler whose position is hereditary—you're posting about a lot of countries both past and present.
I wouldn't describe the Japanese Empire, China before the KMT, France under the Bourbons, England under Henry VIII (or under the Normans), or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as particularly libertarian—in the case of the latter it's harder to tell who are less free: Saudi Arabians or Iranians (where, if I understand correctly, Christians—at least the Chaldeans—or whatever the traditional churches are—can make Communal wine).
Presumably the lower tax rates are courtesy of all state property being owned by the monarch. As for monarchal warfare, wasn't the Armenian genocide lead by a sultan? Not many democracies existed in Europe during the 30 Years War.
Also, I'm sure many of the soldiers were conscripts.
One might argue that the increase in casualties in democracies, or at least populist and/or nationalist states, or where the leader got power by violent overthrow—e.g. Communists and, to a lesser extent, Nazis (the SA from c. 1920 to 1933)—coincided with total war. Before, knights fought with swords. Guns put an end to it. Armies march on their stomachs—burn the crops. I understand that in the US Civil War, the CSA took a hit when one unit suffered not so much from Unionists killing their soldiers, but killing their mules so they couldn't cross a patch of desert and simply had to give up whatever mission they were on.
There is also the question of how a monarchy would be established. The examples of Napoleon, Alexander "the Great," and "Emperor" Bokassa (or whatever was the president of the CAR) don't offer hope.
Liechtenstein is a tiny little country that has, yes, escaped a lot of the carnage of European history of the past 100 years (though the same could be said of Switzerland and post-Civil War Ireland—at least the R.O.I.). It is as a country where a citizen could more easily shake hands with his/her prince than most Americans could their mayor. I wouldn't describe a country that—to my knowledge at least—still had serfs as having an "extremely liberalized economy" (no more than the CSA with its slaves). I think the Industrial Revolution happened a bit after Cromwell—and thus after the (de facto, at least) assertion of the supremacy of Parliament and all of that.
Lastly we have American Aborigines. Consider the Incans, Aztecs, Iroquois Confederacy, and Inuit. The first two, while not quite empires in the Eurasian sense of the words, were monarchal and all it took were a relative few bold conquistadors to subdue them. (Such might also to an extent explain the political situation of countries such as Mexico and Peru—again, my ignorance of this is vast.) Many Aboriginal groups in US and Canada still enjoy a fair amount of autonomy, if not quite officially then unofficially. Further north, the Inuit might still speak Inuktitut more than English.
Lastly, didn't I hear that democracies tend not to war with each other—at least the liberal ones.