Not sometimes ALWAYS. That and the whole venereal transfer of power thing. Not to mention absolute authority being vested in someone for no apparent reason. Complete lack of involvement of the governed in the government. No method of redress for the people against the government. No method of controlling or replacing the government. A tendency towards idolatry. And just generally that it’s a stupid antiquated system built on the ridiculous theory that the guy with the power somehow deserves it.
There is no doubt that a feudal King exercised dictatorial powers.
That the word has become associated with negative connotations more-so than King is just an amusing aspect of History and the absolute abuse and turning the concept on it's head by the declaration of “dictator for life” (essentially a King in all but name: ‘King’ being “a word hateful to any Romans ear” after the Roman Kings).
The original “dictator” provision of the Roman Republic was quite preferable to a King. He was elected during an emergency to assume dictatorial powers and only for a year or until the emergency was over.
The ideal “dictator” was Cincinatus - and our founders greatly admired him - founding a society under his name - and our great city of Cincinnati is of course named for him.
You, too, don’t seem to be in touch with the historical reality. The relationship between elements of the feudal society was very complex, most of it rested on contractually undertaken obligations and not on raw power. Did you read the short primer that I linked in 246?