>>1776
There's not one single reason to be a monarchist. There's many of which you may find some more convincing than other. So, let me just list some of the arguments I find good.
In a sense, monarchy is more natural than democracy. Democracy creates an impersonal, even anonymous government. In a monarchy, the head of state is also the face of the state. People can identify better with him than with "the state". That breeds unity. Add to this that the archetypical king is almost a father figure to his nation, whereas under democracy, the head of state is supposed to be your brother. Thus, the very institution of democracy creates an atmosphere of egalitarianism. It's also unnatural for a brother to act like a father. Imagine if the king personally reprimanded you for something, and if a random prime minister did.
A monarch also has his entire early life to prepare for his duties, which includes psychological preparation. A democratic or republican leader is hit over the head with the fact that he now has to lead an entire nation.
Because monarchs are in charge much longer, and have to bequeath their rule to a family member, and are more independent of public opinion, they will also think more in the long term than a democratic ruler. To a democratic ruler, taking up a horrendous loan is not a bad strategy, because he won't have to deal with the mess when he leaves office four years later, while he will reap all the benefits of the loan. A monarch will think twice about financially ruining the nation that his son will later inherit. Hoppe talked about this at length.
Also, monarchy is an international institution. That facilitates peace, as a monarch will be less inclined to destroy an enemy he's related with. He will also speak several languages, most likely, so as to make peace talks more fruitful. One of the "best" episodes was perhaps FDR having talks with Stalin, when neither spoke the others language.