I will say that to achieve the kind of unity that an actual monarchy requires -- like with any dictatorship -- usually requires extraordinary circumstances and has to appeal to an arbiter or requires force to attain this degree of greater unity.
Any aim to establish greater unity requires force / an arbiter / terror, like Hitler notes in Mein Kampf that Christianity was not content to establish its own altar, but also had to tear others down -- so dictators in order to have preeminence have to rely upon force, and so do preeminent monarchies usually start off from warlords / conquerors and overtime naturally by the breeze of governance and justice accommodate their subjects -- but it isn't by convention or concord that such unity is established, that is like Hobbes says... impossible... it is impossible to have such a degree of unity by merely convention or concord... because people are easy to divide (like monarchists are about pretenders).
...
All dictatorships -- in order to attain greater unity -- ban the other political parties, that is the only way to establish this degree of greater unity, no matter how much it is justified... requires an appeal to an arbiter...
...
So there must inevitably be a recourse to some arbiter or force and while it might not arguably be the key component for the preservation of a state -- it is a necessary component for its initation and you must have some of the Sword and some of the Crosier... and generally speaking, that is the only way, otherwise people would never come to any agreement and concord... especially to such a degree of unity that corporatists or absolute monarchists want.
Not only Hobbes, but Plato lays this down in Laws about the necessity of arbiters:
Plato Laws
>Athenian: And every man surely likes his own laws best, and the laws of others not so well.
>Athenian: The next step will be that these persons who have met together, will select some arbiters, who will review the laws of all of them, and will publicly present such as they approve to the chiefs who lead the tribes, and who are in a manner their kings, allowing them to choose those which they think best. These persons will themselves be called legislators, and will appoint the magistrates, framing some sort of aristocracy, or perhaps monarchy, out of the dynasties or lordships, and in this altered state of the government they will live.
--What usually justifies an appeal to arbiter is usually foreign invasion or a revolution or extraordinary event by circumstance... and it usually comes in my circumstance, revolution, or events and isn't guaranteed if it was planned out...
…
North Korea? --Civil war and foreign occupation has been ushered in to help "justify" the Kim Dynasty, because of the Japanese or Americans. I think North Korea is the best example to point to, because Monarchies like that usually do require some kind of compulsion and force to attain such a degree of unity -- and while force is a component, such a lordly monarchy is justified by needing to fight off a foreign enemy... that is a great circumstance to establish a monarchy without either the taint of usurpation (because it is against foreign occupation), because usurpation usually is a very fickle and dangerous groundwork and leaves a bad precedent in everyone's mind no matter how well it was justified.
That is why Jean Bodin says that Lordly Monarchies is how monarchies are introduced & contrary to Aristotle and his view of election... so Lordly Monarchy or the right of a conqueror is justified by nature in his view.
Jean Bodin says,