Fed up with the obstructionism facing his family in his native Austria. Otto von Hapsburg, the current heir to the Hapsburg* titles and lands, has decided that instead of continuing to work towards being allowed in his own person (or that of his son) to take part in national politics, he shall make a naked grab for power. However, instead of trying to grab a throne in Vienna, he has been following the human tragedies occurring daily within the failed state of Somalia.
Here, he reasons, is a situation where someone who intends to restore the rule of law, supported by military might from a mixed force of personal retainers and mercenaries supplied by several different sources (The Russians, and Chinese, both have pledged support and military supplies in the hope that establishing any kind of order within Somalia will serve to reduce piracy.) can prove that a monarchy by so capable a family as the Hapsburgs would be a measurable good for the people of his new nation.
Obviously this is a ridiculous scenario. And ignores, on many levels, some obvious problems. (Just for an example: How to avoid the mistakes of Colonialism?) But the general idea is one that I think bears discussion:
Just when does a monarchy become preferable to mass-based forms of governance, if ever? I'll admit to cheating, because, it's hard to consider what's going on in Somalia to actually resemble a government. Compared to outright anarchy, I'd love to see a monarchy established.
For that matter, Juan Carlos of Spain is an interesting example. I'm no expert in Spanish history, but my impression is that it was his position as King that allowed the nation to avoid civil war after Franco's rule. While the Spanish king doesn't rule, his position as head of state did allow for a much smoother transfer of power than I would have believed possible, otherwise.
*Yes, I know he's passed his claim in favor of his son. Work with me here - I'm just making a ridiculous hypothetical. The undead Hapsburg is just more fun to play with.