Oh, of course not. I know all the Founding Fathers were just jim dandy with having any form of monarch, elected or not
Hamilton's use of the dreaded "M" word set alarm bells ringing to the exclusion of everything else he said concerning the subject. From Madison's notes: "It will be objected probably, that [an Executive for life] will be an elective Monarch, and will give birth to the tumults which characterize that form of Gov[ernmen]t. He w[oul]d reply that Monarch is an indefinite term. It marks not either the degree or duration of power. If the Executive Magistrate wd. be a monarch for life--the other prop[ose]d by the Report . . . wd. be a Monarch for seven years."
-----
The following day Hamilton was taken to task for his remarks on state sovereignty, which some construed as a call for the abolition of states. Hamilton responded that he had been misunderstood, and explained that he did not advocate a complete abolition of the states, only a diminution of their status as political entities to ensure the preponderance of the federal government.
Nope, no big strong government there < /sarcasm>
It seems that you choose to persist in your own purposeful misunderstanding regarding Hamilton alleged call for a Monarchy. This quotation was taken from your posting.