A Bit TLDR, but not really. This is one of the pages from my monarchist website verbatim, copied and posted here:

Before diving into monarchy, we need to first address democracy, which when government is concerned is often misunderstood as a concept and incorrectly applied in practice in our modern world. What is democracy? Democracy is political in nature, not social in nature. It describes process and structure, not social norms or ethics. And what it says is: that any territory should be governed by the majority of its politically equal citizens. Another definition of democracy could be the amount of direct control that each citizen has in, or over, the government.

The word democracy has also been used as a synonym for representation, or even liberty, and indeed
many use the word in this way, despite being arguably incorrect. Democracy is not a guarantee of
representation or even liberty. Democracies can, like any other government, be illiberal; a democracy
can devolve into Mob rule or Majority tyranny where the ascendant majority will brutalize, suppress,
and oppress any and all minorities.

"The people as a body cannot deliberate. Nevertheless, they will feel an irresistible impulse to act, and their resolutions will be dictated to them by their demagogues... and the violent men, who are the most forward to gratify those passions, will be their favorites." - Fisher Ames, US Representative for Massachusetts 1st District 1789-1797 

Democracy, while having a defined structure, has a defined process and is really just a means to an end, it is a frame not a picture. For instance, if a majority voted for a Communist party, or a Nazi party, or Anarchist party, then that country is going to become Communist, Nazi, or witness the complete
collapse of central authority all Democratically! The adverb of the word democracy describes its process, but that process has no director or painter, and the baton or the brush can be claimed by anyone, however unpleasant. Democracies naturally grow out of themselves Division, Populism, and
Demagogues. Democracy produces what threatens it, poisons it, and inevitably will kill it. 

"A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will
produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way." - Fisher Ames

"For when men of this sort and their followers become numerous in a state and realize their numbers, then it is they who, in conjunction with the folly of the people, create a tyrant out of that one of them who has the greatest and mightiest tyrant in his own soul." - Socrates, Plato's Republic, Book IX

Liberty is a very different concept to democracy. Liberty, when applied to the structure and process of
government, asks: “How should government authority be exercised?” And its answer: that government
and authority should be exercised so as to provide each person or community with the largest possible amount of personal autonomy and freedom. Liberty, therefore, can be applied to, and found in, various forms of Government, even in Kingdoms and Empires.

The Founding fathers of the United States knew as much, as does any avid reader of history.
​
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the
depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
(Parliament in Britain rather than the Colonial assemblies)

“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
(Another claim of the independence of Colonial assemblies from Parliament in Britain)

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and
unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
(Explicit claim that Parliament is alien to the Colonies without naming Parliament. Parliament has no
legal jurisdiction over America)

“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
(The Government of America is native to America. So, Removing the “Royal Protection” was legally tantamount to abdication. Again, Parliament not even considered as a legal factor in America)

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.” - Declaration of Independence: In Congress, July 4, 1776
(Throughout the whole document, Parliament is never named once. The Document focuses on the King, because they believe that only he wields legitimate authority over North America. There is no other dependence except under the King, the only necessary action to take then is to withdraw allegiance to him. Britain believed the war was an act of secession, the Americans believed it was a war of Independent Dominions fighting for Liberty against Tyranny. The King has only acted Tyrannically,
insofar as he has refused to stand up to the British Parliament and protect his American subjects)

"Men naturally love liberty, and dominion over others; so what is the final cause or end or design they have in mind when they introduce the restraint upon themselves under which we see them live in commonwealths? It is the prospect of their own preservation and, through that, of a more contented life thereby; of getting themselves out of the miserable condition of war which (as I have shown) necessarily flows from the natural passions of men when there is no visible power to keep them in awe and tie them by fear of punishment to keep their covenants...And covenants without the sword are but words, with no strength to secure a man at all." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVII

Representation is also achievable by many different forms of institutions, and elections or voting are not always required for this to be so. Lawyers represent you in court, true you may hire your own if you are able, but those that are provided to you have the same duty to represent you as one you hire. If voting was necessary to be represented, then what becomes of those individuals who did not vote or those that cast a vote for the failed candidate? Are they thereby not represented because they have not made their voice known or their voice was not heeded and so any laws that they are constrained to follow are an arbitrary and illegal will over them? Or is there more to representation than that?

"A commonwealth is said to be ‘instituted’ when a multitude of men agree and covenant—each one with each other—that when some man or assembly of men is chosen by majority vote to present the person of them all (i.e. to be their representative), each of them will authorize all the actions and judgments of that man or assembly of men as though they were his own, doing this for the purpose of living peacefully among themselves and being protected against other men. This binds those who did not vote for this representative, as well as those who did. For unless the votes are all understood to be included in the majority of votes, they have come together in vain, and contrary to the end that each proposed for himself, namely the peace and protection of them all." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XVIII

It is not Election or Voting that is the source of Representation, but Consent or Authorization, and consent comes in two main forms, active and passive. Active consent of course takes the form of elections and voting, but also it can be in the form of placing restrictions on actions or setting limits on what sorts of actions or activity you will or will not tolerate. Passive consent is what you provide when you abstain from an election, you gave no preference either way and so automatically agree to any outcome. Passive consent is also what you provide to institutions, constitutions, and the overall structures of government. It is the unspoken architecture across generations and centuries of how things are done, how things are organized, and what our roles in society and our country are.

“Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure—but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked on with other reverence; because it is not a partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born. Each contract of each particular state is but a clause in the great primæval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the higher natures, connecting the visible and invisible world, according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place.” - Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Monarchy, or a single hereditary executive, is a paradox in many ways, and by looking at some of the
core aspects that make up its Nature, we hope to demonstrate why we believe a Semi-Constitutional
Monarchy (described as a Limited Monarchy in previous centuries) is the best way to move forward for
the United States.

Monarchy, through its hereditary aspect, is naturally A-political. They are impartial and are not compromised by partisanship and faction. The monarch having inherited their position doesn’t need to fight for that authority in elections, and therefore they stand above faction, party, and political maneuvers to view all decisions they make from a very broad perspective. As such they are in the best position to act in a universal and ecumenical way, and with equal favor towards all of the citizens and regions of their country.

Elections are naturally divisive; they are never* (rarely) unanimous and pit one group against another to gain power. Elected persons are naturally partisan and factional, they speak on behalf of specific constituencies, parties, or base of supporters and so are incapable of accommodating or acting on behalf of the whole, they largely operate under short timelines and self-serving incentives. It is a fight for numbers and there will always be winners and losers and the common good will be severely compromised.

"The difference between these three kinds of Commonwealth consisteth, not in the difference of power, but in the difference of convenience or aptitude to produce the peace and security of the people; for which end they were instituted. And to compare monarchy with the other two, we may observe: first, that whosoever beareth the person of the people, or is one of that assembly that bears it, beareth also his own natural person. And though he be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest, yet he is more, or no less, careful to procure the private good of himself, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the public interest chance to cross the private, he prefers the private: for the passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason. From whence it follows that where the public and private interest are most closely united, there is the public most advanced. Now in monarchy the private interest is the same with the public. The riches, power, and honour of a monarch arise only from the riches, strength, and reputation of his subjects. For no king can be rich, nor glorious, nor secure, whose subjects are either poor, or contemptible, or too weak through want, or dissension, to maintain a war against their enemies; whereas in a democracy, or aristocracy, the public prosperity confers not so much to the private fortune of one that is corrupt, or ambitious, as doth many times a perfidious advice, a treacherous action, or a civil war." - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIX

Monarchy is like having a living flag or a personification of the country, its history, and its culture. Their family and ancestors were present long before many of our families either emigrated to the country or even came into exitance. Their person is rooted in the very soil of the nation itself. The buildings, cities, and monuments seen around might have been financed by one of their ancestors, and in that way, we greatly benefit from that historical patronage. A Royal Family and a country are often very intimately connected. Monarchs however also possess an “international” flavor to them, as Royal Families tended to marry outside their realms, forging connections with many other families and dynasties from many other various backgrounds, cultures, religions, and histories.

Monarchy is also like a trade or apprenticeship. Education in the art has been seen from the earliest times of royalist political philosophy to be crucial for any future monarch to be successful. Being educated in languages, law, literature, diplomacy, etiquette, philosophy, history, politics, rhetoric, mathematics, the Arts, etc. as well as performing duties in military service would not be an uncommon regiment as a “monarch in training.” Proper education, along with checks and balances as outlined in later developed political theory, were seen as a bulwark against the potential for any tyranny, from either a monarch, an assembly, or other institutions. This educational ideal is also responsible for philosopher and sage Kings; royals who patronized the arts and sciences and commissioned some of the best architects, artists, thinkers, and scientists who have left behind a tremendous legacy, monarchs who founded museums and universities, who invested in various profitable farsighted ventures, who subsidized industries, who promoted merit and outstanding individuals, etc. Taking inspiration from the Platonic dialogues, one can read the “Ship” allegory; that a country is like a ship, would you want just anyone to steer the vessel or those educated in how to sail? Why therefore, would the choice be different for those that steer the ship of state? 

Monarchs are able to draw loyalty and support from a very wide range of peoples, religions, cultures,
ages, and political affiliations within the country. Such a thing is impossible for most if not all Presidents or Prime ministers; that focus of support and loyalty for the monarchy is coming from an entirely different angle and almost defies conventional logic. Because why should people hold greater support for a person for whom they have not directly voted vs a person they have? This loyalty given to the Royal authority is rooted in so many various sentiments and emotions. There exists a certain amount of love, of affection, of admiration, of trust, and of respect in and for that authority; it is a personal and emotional connection.

It is for these reasons; of the Nature of Monarchy in Theory, History, Reality, and Practicality; the Nature of elections and Democracy; why we advocate for a monarchy in the United States. The Presidential office has become far too partisan and factional over these past several decades and indeed our founding fathers warned us of the dangers of factions. Hereditary Monarchy seems the best and most practical way of permanently removing any possibility of that from returning to infect the executive branch.