Wrong. This assumes that the monarch has such a desire to pass anything to his children, or is even capable of having children. Very often, monarchs have failed to give two shits about their own kingdom because they were busy engaging themselves in a litany of wars or conquests, and took no interest the domestic state of the country which they really didn't care about. This was a particular problem with Richard The Lionhearted, who really didn't even give a shit about England, and saw it a worthless backwater. Not like France and the Holyland.

That's not typical at all. Historically the thing monarchs cared about most was their legacy and their heirs. What do you think the conquests were about? Expanding and enriching their territory. How is that not caring about your country? You want it to be bigger and better. Obviously their motivations are also selfish, that just comes with the territory.

Not to mention that the King does not have such ownership, when he is typically in conflict with his lords, who have their own land and property to pass on. Very often, monarchs will be happy to destroy the territory of less loyal lords, while rewarding more loyal lords as an act of political sabotage and loyalty.

Well a King relies on his lords to help secure his land. If they are rebellious he is going to try and depose them and reclaim it. I don't know where you are getting the idea that he wants to destroy their territory from, because that's HIS territory.

Absolute hogwash. Monarchs have repeatedly stoked mobs of people into violence as a methodology of control. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you, it is literally the origin of the word Tyrant. This is sheer historical ignorance on your part. Riots are not always allowed, but riots are sometimes intentionally allowed as a methodology of control, demographic replacement, and justification for larger political strategic actions.

Nobody who is in power wants a revolt on their hands. The people who foment riots are those who want to take power for themselves. If you already have control, then anarchy is not profitable for you in any way. The word tyrant is from a brutal response to something like a riot, not from starting one.

Total nonsense. The installing of vassal monarchs on behalf of larger empires is maybe the entire history of the Hapsburg Empire.

So is the routine massacre of royal families. Look at Rome, Byzantium, Russia, etc.

As with many tin-pot dictators who rule over their country as if they were a monarch, they also don't give a shit what happens to their country, because their interests only matter within the glorious capital city, and the most prosperous core of it. Let the rest of the people starve. This is common among monarchs and dictators alike.

No it was very uncommon for that to happen throughout history. You wouldn't stay King long if your people were starving to death.

Again, no. Expanding your empire's influence is only one part of the agenda of a ruler. The Hittites are not going to conquer Egypt just because the child-king of Egypt is literally to young to properly rule. The weakness is useful for the Hittites to develop their kingdom and expand their influence unmolested, but it is not justification to conquer a kingdom. In fact, it is likely that many kingdoms will simply stay out of it to avoid embroiling themselves into a political situation they simply don't care enough about to solve. They have better things to do.

Yes they would. The death of a King was often an opportunity for a rival to declare war and annex territory. Any weakness in a rival was an opportunity to strike, and a child-king is a great example of that.

Popular disruption, civil disobedience, and thankfully some kind of voting system which can unseat the established power structure to a small degree. Under a king, like literally every king where high taxes were imposed (like under China, Japan, Islamic Caliphates, Ottoman Empire... the list goes on forever), the only option would be mandatory death and starvation.

Doesn't happen. A kingdom doesn't survive very long if the people are starving to death.

Again, there is under most western systems with term limits. Where there is absolutely zero hope of a better manager of his kingdom is under a monarch.

Seriously, I don't think you know anything about the history of monarchs.

You have a very naive view of history, and a poor understanding of people in general. Life back then was hard for everyone. We simply didn't have the technology that we have today. We all live individually better than any king in history did. A monarchy is not inherently bad or evil. Historically they had more of a stake in the success of their kingdoms than politicians do today, because politicians just pass their problems onto the next guy. A king doesn't have that option. His problems either go on to his children or end up with him getting wiped out.