Mono is an OSS implementation of the .NET framework, so that developers can develop applications using .NET architecture without the .NET framework (and so that they can be cross platform). If a developer uses mono to develop, then mono will be the framework that you have to deploy. If a developer uses .net to develop, then .net will be the framework that you have to deploy.
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia..../Mono_%28software%29
I don't believe this is exactly correct, and I didn't see anywhere in the link that would change my mind. However, I am open to more information proving me wrong if this is indeed the case.
From my understanding, if you use Mono, SOME .Net developed applications *Should* work, though compatability is far from complete. Moreover, as an OSS implimentation, it is by design at least a generation behind .Net development.
Mono for Windows makes little sense to me unless you are using (or trying to use) an application developed specifically in Mono that doesn't work with .Net. I respect your not willing to discuss your reasons, but I will still put forth my 2 cents about the issue in general. If you are against using .Net due to bloat, the need for the framework, or some other similar issue, then I don't see the point of Mono as it suffers from the same things. It is a framework that mimics most of .Net's functionality for the targeted version of .Net. If it is a more philosophical reason, well then I can't argue in favor of .Net at all as that is why you are avoiding it.
Personally, I like the idea of Mono better specifically because it *CAN* be cross-platform (and no other reason really). However, the implementation of it has really not been up to my expectation, so I still don't use it yet. For this reason, I have taken to a lot of the RIA platforms, Silverlight/Moonlight in particular. It isn't quite up to par either, but it is more complete in my view than Mono.
Now that I am far afield, I will stop. I hope that helps.