Certainly it worked out that way in Britain.  James I, the first of the Stuart kings, was a case in point.

King James I had also been king of Scotland (King James VI), but when he moved to London after the death of Queen Elizabeth I, as a rough Scottish chieftan accustomed to the outdoors, he was ill-suited to the relatively effete, hothouse climate of a sophisticated, urbane court.

As result, King James I spent the greater part of his reign inventing excuses for going on a hunt, or for otherwise staying out of the stuffy chambers were, as a conscientious monarch, he should have remained.

This propensity for hunting and being absent from the palace produced an interesting phenomenon: King James was rarely around when the bureaucrats wanted him.

The consequence was that when his signature was needed on a bill or proclamation, or his opinion or guidance was needed on some vital matter, they either had to delay or proceed without him.

Thanks in no small part to this negligence, moves that had begun earlier to establish a parliament and to make it meaningful as a representative and decision-making body, were brought into fruition.

While James was engrossed in his favorite sport (burning witches - it was said he could identify a witch on sight), a law was passed to the effect that all taxes had to be approved by Parliament, and that no king could impose a tax without parliamentary consent.

Further, and most significant for the future American republic, it was legally established that no subject of Britain had to pay a tax at all unless he was represented in the general government.

Now, if King James had been on hand, he most likely would have objected to ideas of this sort.  But as luck would have it, since he was preoccupied, such legislation passed without his successful opposition.

Of course, James did roll back into town every now and then and did his share of objecting, but his preoccupation elsewhere served the cause of his irresolution, and Britain flourished.