To understand absolute monarchists attitude toward Aristotle, I'll leave you with quotes from Jean Bodin & Thomas Hobbes:
Jean Bodin - Aristotle, forced to confess that there never were any king & Moses the greatest tyrant of all
>"What Aristotle said that the king becomes a tyrant when he governs even to a minor degree contrary to the wishes of the people – is not true, for by this system there would be no kings. Moses himself, a most just and wise leader, would be judged the greatest tyrant of all, because he ordered and forbade almost all things contrary to the will of the people. Anyway, it is popular power, not royal, when the state is governed by the king according to the will of the people, since in this case the government depends upon the people. Therefore, when Aristotle upheld this definition, he was forced to confess that there never were any king"
...
Bodin - Natives of America, not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by Nature
>"Moreover, from earliest memory the people of America always have retained the royal power. They do not do this because they have been taught, but from custom. They were not trained by Aristotle, but shaped by their leader, nature. Furthermore, when they hear that the rule of optimates exists in some corners of Italy or Germany, they marvel that this can be."
Hobbes -- Scarce any thing more absurdly said & more repugnant to Governman than Aristotle's Politics
>"And I believe that scarce any thing can be more absurdly said… more repugnant to Government, than much of that he hath said in his Politics"
I believe Robert Filmer also criticizes Aristotle in his treatise on Aristotle -- particularly, I recall, on the whole tyranny meme: Filmer said, for example, that no master can ever wholly govern his servants for himself ('cause from Aristotle, we know "govern not for yourself" or the principle of partiality (denying the whole for particular interest) -- a master in order to preserve himself also has to preserve his servants, Filmer says.
...
Filmer / Political & Economic, No Different
>Aristotle gives the lie to Plato, and those that say that political and economical societies are all one, and do not differ specie, but only multitudine et paucitate, as if there were 'no difference betwixt a great house and a little city'. All the argument I find he brings against them is this: 'The community of man and wife differs from the community of master and servant, because they have several ends. The intention of nature, by conjunction of male and female, is generation. But the scope of master and servant is only preservation, so that a wife and a servant are by nature distinguished. Because nature does not work like the cutlers at Delphos, for she makes but one thing for one use.' If we allow this argument to be sound, nothing doth follow but only this, that conjugal and despotical [lordly / master] communities do differ. But it is no consequence that therefore economical and political societies do the like. For, though it prove a family to consist of two distinct communities, yet it follows not that a family and a commonwealth are distinct, because, as well in the commonweal as in the family, both these communities are found.
So there's a reason why we sorta bonk on Aristotle (but tbh there's also a few problems we have with Plato, but I'd say we're overall less critical.)