Upvote:0
The question is meaningless in terms of history and intimately related social sciences, in the sense that it incorrectly uses terms and asks questions at a level that cannot be answered with valid methods.
Historians, following Ranke, attempt to tell the past as it was rather than reflecting on moral categories. The theoretical categories in use by historians tend to be even more limited than those of sociology.
Asking about monotheism and systems of rule in a long duration is unanswerable: the terms become meaningless if a relationship is to be demonstrated. For example, the Catholicism present in Louis XIVs society has been accused of being polytheistic by appropriately qualified (Protestant) theologians due to the veneration of saints.
Medieval crowns (ie: in Europe, the only place the term strictly applies) were limited by law, custom, religion, higher and lower governments, wars within crowns, wars between crowns, treason, revolt, sedition and popular uprisings. Neither the government nor a ruler could impose their will in any thing or in all things.
Some states in the early modern period (1450-1800) came to control what happened in their territories, this is the ideal of the Westphalian state. Few sovereigns could control anything without being checked from below, however, and even Louis XIV used social and cultural coordination, and accepted limited results.
Terms are too broad, undefined, and asking for moral answers. History doesn't do this.
Upvote:2
No. There are plenty of examples of absolute monarchs outside monotheism:
The above kings/emperors had far reaching powers most European kings could only dream about.
Looking up to such a king in Ayutthaya/Siam was in some cases punishable by death. Touching a royal, even to save him/her from drowning was also punishable by death. Not only for the offenders, but for their entire family.
This actually happened happened in 1880 in Siam. A queen and her daughter were on the way to Bang Pa-In Summer palace when their barge capsized. They couldn't swim and both drowned. The event was witnessed by many courtiers who could not do anything to save their lives.
The water there (a canal) is not very deep (too deep to stand, though), and flows very slowly. The banks are low. I've been there a couple of times.
After the event king Chulalongkorn changed that law.
Sukhtothai, Ayutthaya, later Siam, later Thailand are Buddhist countries with very strong influences of animism and Hinduism. They copied their concept of divine kingship from the Khmer. Monotheism is fairly new in Siam/Thailand and is insignificant politically.
In China you have the forbidden city in Beijing. Entry was for royals and courtiers and on invitation of the emperor. There were roads or parts of the road that only the emperor was allowed to use. I have no idea what the penalty was for offenders, but probably a bit more then a ticket or a verbal warning.
Your question, btw, is too broad. Which European kings, compared to whom? In which time period? Even so, the idea that absolute monarchy or divine kingship is exclusively related to monotheism is not correct.