Yes, I remember that thread. Discovering it belatedly, I tried to revive the discussion, but no one took the bait. Charles Coulombe, the author of the FAQ you posted (hosted on my website) is an occasional correspondent of mine, and someone whose writings I greatly admire and who has been very influential in shaping my own thinking.
I think monarchy is much like democracy in that a lot of good can come from it but in the wrong hands, both are equally evil.
Perhaps, but I believe that monarchy is less likely to place power in evil hands than elections. The nature of the political process is such that unscrupulous people are more likely to succeed. In contrast, in a monarchy there is at least a chance that a totally decent person (like Emperor Karl) will attain the top position. It should also be noted that the modern democratic state is far more intrusive of its subjects' lives than any king ever dreamed. From a traditionalist conservative point of view, one of the worst dangers of democracy is that it inevitably promotes the idea that inequality is an outrage, encouraging statist redistribution of wealth (as well as obscene privileges such as affirmative action). Obviously, a monarchy, built on inequality, has no such inherent opposition to it and therefore has no incentive to engage in the redistributive, social engineering schemes that democratically elected politicians have been so fond of.