Glad you like them! 

Basically, it comes down to questions of state capacity – could the monarch tax enough on a regular basis to keep a standing navy and a shipbuilding industry around in peace-time? Usually, the answer was no, because the taxing powers of the monarch tended to be too fixed by tradition, and the revenue service too undeveloped, to collect the necessary funds…in peace time. War, it was generally understood, was an exception to the normal rule, and the powers of the monarch were greatly expanded. 

To use England as an example, the monarch was supposed to fund both their household/court and the government out of their personal incomes plus their “ordinary incomes” (namely, revenue from excise taxes on imported wines, plus incomes from various monopolies) which Parliament traditionally voted them for life. Anything more than that required a vote of Parliament to impose taxation…but during war, the King could impose “ship money” on ports, coastal towns, and coastal shires – in essence, a feudal requirement to provide ships for the navy or enough cash for the king to build or hire additional ships. 

But ship money was only supposed to be imposed in times of war, and when Charles I tried to use it in times of peace to avoid having to call Parliament, it led to a huge legal controversy, a massive campaign of tax refusal, and helped to build up the Parliamentary coalition against Charles I which would lead to the English Civil War. 

So with those kind of institutional structures, you’re not going to get a steady ship-building programme.