The limitations of monarchy is what TrueElephant was talking about:

There's your problem. You conceive of any governing authority as having the power of a modern liberal state. An absolute fuedal monarch is far more limited in his power than a democratic state. Mass conscription isn't possible without a democratic political formula to justify itself as the will of the masses, as demonstrated well by the contrast of Napoleon and the coalition. The machinations of a king and his court does not touch the peasant, who can manage his piece of land as he pleases without applying for permits. Furthermore, it is in the interest of the Rex to uplift his people towards a better condition.

The power is held by the STATE and NOT by individuals and their economic prowess ( capitalism )

OWNERSHIP is separate from power. You can argue it's upstream from it, really, since an owner has rights over his own property. Even in an absolute monarchy, the monarch doesn't own the entirety of the means of production, which is what the definition of socialism requires.

But go ahead, flail and cry about socialist absolute monarchs.

Also: NAME ONE.