I am periodically asked how I reconcile monarchism with my libertarian leanings. The answer is that I don't see the two as irreconcilable and historically monarchies have been far closer to the libertarian ideal in practice than virtually all of the so called "liberal" democracies. With the caveat that we are not talking about the peculiar brand of libertarianism that is a thinly disguised anarchism, for which there is no form of government that is acceptable, ever. And with the further caveat that there have certainly been some abusive monarchies; I would make a few broad brush observations about life in countries governed by a monarch.
In general as long as one refrained from treason and sedition or overtly trying to undermine the established church, paid your taxes (which in most monarchies were a pittance by today's democratic standards), and refrained from those crimes against persons and property that are universally proscribed in any orderly society, you were very likely to be left alone. Point in fact, many people went through their entire lives with little or no contact with the government.
Historically governments in monarchies were almost always much smaller than those which exist in today's enlightened democratic world. The influence of the Imperial Russian Autocracy on the ordinary lives of its hundred million or more subjects was minimal. Most historians of pre-revolutionary Russia argue that the country was ridiculously under-governed.
This is not to argue that monarchy is a perfect system. No form of government run by humans is. But even when you had a bad monarch (not as common as many left-wing academicians would have us believe) the impact on ordinary people not closely connected to the court or the capital was often low. Consider that while many monarchies were at one time in theory autocratic, in reality such was rarely the case. Monarchical power was constrained by tradition custom and usage, by the precepts and moral authority of the Church and by an aristocracy that did not want its own position threatened by an overreaching monarch. And the really horrible monarchs (extremely rare but there were a few) often became accident prone and wound up flying out of upper floor palace windows or dying of acute strangulation in their bed. Granted it's not as neat as an election but it worked. Finally, how many horrible monarchs have there been versus all of the lousy presidents we keep electing in continuous succession?
Or to put it another way; which government is more onerous, the one we live under now or the one under George III that our forebearers fought to overthrow? I will give you a hint; George III could never have even dreamed of the authority to have any of his subjects assassinated by royal decree. And if you think the royal taxes we revolted over were high I am guessing you haven't had much contact with the IRS in the last half century.