I get what you're saying, although I'm not sure it makes sense to favor one institution over another when the real danger to human freedom and thriving is authoritarianism in any form. And authoritarianism can come in the form of government (fascism), business (oligarchy), or religion( theocracy).
The danger to humans ARE OTHER humans. When there was zero government, business, religion only 5% males survived. We need all three powers so that "authorianism" is minimised. If the government controls all three (fascism communism) you get horrendous results. Monarchy was regulated by religion.
What do you think religion is made of? Heck, who do you think made up gods and religions? OTHER HUMANS!
You do realise that the only check on monarchs was religion. Plus People with lo IQ need some type of religion to be social. Those who oppose religion want to impose their own.
Are we talking about any religion, or one specific one like Christianity? Also, I just want to make sure I understand your point: are you saying that autocracies are always kept in line by a benevolent religion that is at least as powerful as the autocracy?
Not always. Religion was the only restraint in Monarchs. Do look at the story of Henry VIII.
Given that the US is, for now, a constitutional republic with a democratic process for appointing representatives to government offices, why do you keep talking about monarchies?
US has the distinction of being ruled by a machine called autopen. That is not a constitutional republic. The core of any constitutional democracy is that the person with the mandate rules on behalf of the electorate. You have a woke view of monarchy. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
Religion was a tool of the monarchy. How convenient it was that serfs had to be docile and pay a tithe to get into heaven. And how convenient it was that the king could change the religion when he wanted to get a divorce.