Politics of Kingship

"Monarchy represents the belief in one man who is utterly superior, - a Leader (Fuhrer), a saviour, a demigod.
Aristocracy represents the belief in an elite humanity and higher caste.
Democracy represents the DISbelief in great human beings and an elite society".
[Nietzsche,WzM 752]

The British poet John Wain remarked on how Shakespeare used the idea of kingship to explore the reaches of the human mind.
Shakespeare, as he says, was a believer in the 'divine right of kings' - a believer, but not an uncrititcal believer.
Kingship is based on kin-ship [ etymological connection between 'kin' and 'king', the latter from 'kinging'] : Imperialism then, is an extension of this, [although the alien peoples of the Empire cannot really have OUR king, unless it is in the state of conquest, or else an imploration of protection]; the King is 'the best' of the kin-group - he embodies the masculine [vir] principle, the ruling principle. Importantly, he has the role of protecor, just as the head of the family has that role.

Has the Monarchic principle fallen foul of universalism and democracy?
It would seem so, but only on the face of it: Shakespeare's appeal would be lost on present audiences if that were true. As Wain says, "everyman fancies himself as a dispossessed king".
Kingship is central to the individual psychology and is therefore in for a revival the more individualistic society becomes. Forget the republican notion that we are 'led' into docility by Kings; - the King, properly, is the Highest expression of the best that man can be.
The King guides his kindred to a Higher Purpose - he is a Star in the constellation of sovereign peoples.
The system of representation of the common people should be bereft of party politics and based on Service; the lower ranks must serve the Higher.
The Kingdom is held together by the spiritual ideal that the Sovereign has a sacred duty to protect and honour the kindred.