You see how words like “absolute” keep appearing in both? Do you understand why? Because all a monarchy is is a form of dictatorship, a brand, a flavor.
Sorry, that is sloppy logic. "Four legs" appear in the definitin do a donkey and a leopard. But donkeys are not leopards and leopards are not donkeys. The two estended definition I showed you explain the difference. The one about the Monarchy also explains that monarchy, while by definition autarchic, is not always absolute. In fact, at the time of our focus, the Middle Ages, monarchies were not absolute.
A monarch’s power doesn’t come from God
Firs,t all good things come from God. I don't know what your religion is, so I don't want to make theological points to someone possible not prepared to listen to them, but the fact remains that a king is always crowned in a public (whel, if possible, public; Frederick II cerowned himself in the abandoned Jerusalem Cathedral) religious ceremony which seeks divine sanction to his rule. You may or may not believe in the power of prayer, but understand that the concept of obedience to the will of God and to the rules of the religion that imformed the monarchy is essential to it.
I keep calling it venereal transfer of power
That intentionally childish tone makes it difficult to converse. The word you are seeking for is "hereditary".
thousands of years of recorded human history that tell us that every single non-symbolic monarchy was a dictatorship
It was always a form of autarchy. Excepting usurpers like Napoleon, it was never a dictatorship. Words mean things. Learn words, and you will prevail in arguments more often.
I didn’t shorten anything. I gave you the dictionary definitions of the word. A monarchy IS absolute sovereignty, and subsequently is autarchy. There are no differences.
There’s nothing sloppy about it. You’re lying to yourself pretending that monarchies aren’t dictatorships, I’m putting forth the truth. All monarchies are dictatorships, period, end of sentence, saying otherwise is denying historical truth.
Good things might come from God but dictatorships aren’t good things. Just because somebody crowned himself in a cathedral doesn’t mean God approved. And it doesn’t mean that anything Frederick II did was in obedience to the will of God. Here you’re piling assumptions upon faith none of which have any relationship to the historical facts of dictators calling themselves kings blessed by God. Out here in reality we don’t know if God likes a particular leader or if that particular leader is following God’s will. All we know is whether or not they’re a dictator. And if they’re a monarch they’re a dictator, again period end of sentence plain historical fact.
It’s not childish, it’s the truth. Again let’s look at the dictionary, venereal:
arising from, connected with, or transmitted through sexual intercourse, as an infection.
And how does a monarchy continue? That’s right, by the right person having sex and begetting the next generation of dictator. Which means it is venereal transfer of power.
Autarchies are dictatorships. Let’s spread out to the thesaurus this time:
Synonyms: autocracy, despotism, dictatorship, monocracy, totalitarianism, tyrannical rule, tyranny
Not a lot of freedom in that list. You’re right about one thing, words do mean things. And the words you’re using mean dictatorship. I know the words very well, if there’s somebody here that needs to do some learning it’s the guy that thinks monarchies make freedom.