That may be so in countries like Saudi Arabia, though even there the real source of power is rather murky, probably with very heavy influence from back-room clerics.
It is not correct for Europe's constitutional monarchies. There the monarch is the Head of State, not of Government hence administration. The governmental role is taken by the President or Prime Minister. (Some nations have both posts, whether monarchies or republics.)
What became the United Kingdom started to strip the monarch of absolute power many centuries ago, first with the Magna Carta.
The Interregnum under Oliver Cromwell, and the subsequent Restoration of the monarchy, reduced the soeverign's power still further. The UK's sovereign is now apolitical, acting as a sort of neutral Chairman and representative of the country as a whole, while leaving running the country and deciding policy, to Government and Parliament.
Also, in the UK at least, the Police, Judiciary and Civil-Service are separate from both Crown and Parliament, and each other. They are Crown services, as is the military, but that gives some continuity and stability above Parliament's ruling on laws and budgets.
This is why the British State and Government have largely been reasonably stable and peaceful for so long. Constitutionally, the King has no ruling authority over the citizenry and State services as you describe.
(Yes, the UK does have a Constitution although even some MPs seem to think we don't! The error arises by a totally inaccurate comparison with the far younger USA's single-document Constitution.)
