I've been pondering on this idea for a while now. While I am an avid monarchist, and have zero respect for democracy, I am concerned that the purely libertarian 'possession'-based idea of monarchy is a bit too easy to subvert by (((them))). After all, royal marriages of Kings, Dukes etc. in the olden days were ones of political power, with little regard for the nationality of the spouse or her family's lineage, and sometimes with no regard for the nationality of the King (e.g. Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth comes to mind straight away). This means that powerful investors, bankers and speculators who, despite coming form an aristocratic family with powerful connections, would in no way benefit the volk of the nation as they would ultimately be driven by their own greed and end goals of subversion. Society would be very much at risk these days in particular, since most rich people with aristocratic backgrounds have come in contact with the globalist Jewry at some point, and even those who have never been heard of (for example, Emanuel Macron, supposedly a nobody entering politics yet possessing an aristocratic etiquette and approach, but in reality a businessman with a past of deals and acquaintances with the Rothschilds) have some dirty history behind them.
National Socialism seemed to have fixed this, in a sense. It held firm in authority, with a centralised chain of command where the Furher could be likened to a King or Emperor, and his advisors, the King's court. The difference is that instead of going HAM on the idea of private property, it instead cultivated the idea of a strong identity, where every man could claim Germany as his own, the nation being shared in the volk. Every man, regardless of his position in society, could celebrate his nation's culture, past, tradition, and yet still, the real power was held in a tightly-regulated chain of command. It gave people a sense of unity, and very much held up that idea through the Hitler-jugend, the League of German Girls and many social programmes that helped people build a sense of national and racial unity.
In a certain sense, you could see the Reich as an extremely centralised Empire. The Fuhrer, whose will to act came as a blessing from God, was the overseer of his Empire, the guardian of his people; a man who stood in the trenches of the western front and looked death in the eye, defying him at every turn. He earned his position of power; he fought for what he believed in, and was ready to die for it. He was worthy of being the shepherd guiding his sheep. Other great soldiers and men received prestigious powers; command of armies or became governors of lands, though they didn't own it as their own, and the Fuhrer could revoke it as he pleased, having ultimate say in the land, serving his people as best he could.
I believe that bringing back feudalism in the 21st century would be opening the doors for the jews, allowing them and (((unrelated))) offshoots, bearing millions in cash entry into royal families, but a national socialist monarchy, with a monarch who owns all, and dukes, counts etc. being no more than viceroyals, appointed and revocable by the monarch would be the perfect mix of the two systems, as it would make sure that no aristocrat with land granted by birthright lives off of his titles, but has to work or face immediate revocation and the wrath of the monarch. It would also mean that nation is more than just a concept of allegiance to lineage, but allegiance to a race, a culture, a faith and past that is written in stone.