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.