But You're not describing Monarchy here.
The overwhelming benefit of the Monarch and Aristocracy is the ability to plan and act with extremely low time preference. He can invest in his land and expect that his children maybe will see the benefits of it.
If he is not inherited, but elected and he even can't have Children, then you have the same situation as now. His base incentives are to loot the state for himself, as he does not fundamentally own it.
I have to agree with Marxists here. Fundamental type of production influences a ton in how Political system can work. Aristocracy can be low time preference, because they get rent, from their serfs. With Industrial society, what has changed is the masses learned to read, and huddled into cities. But the industrial production is much more dependant on market changes and is quick reactive. The Capitalist has alot of power over the worker. In the end even the Capitalist is bitch to financiers, who are the capitalists of the capitalists. Industrial production overshoots it's estimates constantly, it's hard to gauge correctly and only the financiers make money in recession.
If there is no class unity and cooperation enforced, by whoever, this system would quickly degenerate into eating itself. Before WW1, the aristocrats in various countries, still had control over the society's unity and cooperation. But it was wiped out by total war and those who shan't be named took over.
They have no care for class unity, they only care about themselves in the end. And look at the production today - the most advanced countries are deindustrializing.
I can't accept Aristocrats, because their nature is too slowmoving for modern world. You need a different type of people to maintain the unity and stability of industrial society. Meritocratic, utterly fanatical and devoted to their population. At least that's my ideal for who should rule over me.
Maybe the fascist glasses cover my outlook too much.