>>776242Like it or not, yes, that's what monarchy is.
Some constitutional monarchists will tout that a king does not rule alone—I personally deny that, even if there are assemblies or council… the chief definition of monarchy is one alone rules, and that fundamental law of monarchy is expressed through sovereignty in which form or constitution of a state or republic is defined primarily by one person's majesty or preeminence and some family alone stands out–and if not, then it's another form of state/republic such as a democracy or oligarchy where some other kind of government has the primacy… but we don't accept a mixed constitutional or the concordant notion of political pluralism like Aristotle's. As Hobbes says, the chief difference between the mixed constitutionalist and absolutist view is that rather it isn't the concord of many men, but the union–and the integrity of the republic is its sovereignty as the fundamental law, pertaining to three forms–and while there might be a confluence of members / elements of democracy or aristocracy, the purity of the primary form of state is maintained, be it a monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy, like Bodin defends and traces back to Herodotus (*and denies Plato acknowledged it in the Aristotle or Polybius established mixed constitutionalist ideals). That is the nuance–and while it seems anachronistic, I cannot really take monarchy any other way because mixed constitutionalism dilutes and renders monarchy irrelevant to begin with… so I personally still maintain the opinion of Bodin or Hobbes in the year 2026 tbh. I wouldn't have it any other way, even if it is not very fashionable, lol