Yet throughout history monarchies have been, by and large, more stable than democracies. There are well-attested dynasties that have lasted for many centuries -- the Zhou, Abbasid, and Rurikid dynasties were all in power for >700 years!
The Abbasid dynasty was at last conquered by the Ottomans -- themselves a >600-year dynasty.
Is there a democracy worthy of the name that has ever lasted >300 years?
"Certainly more stable than monarchy" -- nothing certain about it! History teaches just the opposite.
Sure, from time to time you get a bad emperor. Rome was lousy with bad emperors, towards the end. They tended to be "managed" by their handlers/Praetorians, and the empire marches on.
And Chinese history is basically like: Strong+cunning warrior leads a rebellion and establishes a dynasty, seizing the Mandate of Heaven. His heir, though still vigorous, is less strong and less cunning. His heir is weaker and duller still. By the 10th generation the emperor is a ne'er-do-well who does nothing but eat and write insipid poetry, and the empire is left to eunuchs and oligarchs who loot the populace. Rebellion ensues, a new warrior starts a new dynasty, and so it goes... This predictable cycle was stable for well over 1000 years.
