A real monarchy with absolute power is a facist state by today's standards.
Like you literally didn't have any rights and could be killed on the whim of a noble. Even Magna Carta didn't grabt any rights to peasants and riffraff. The times before it were even more tyranical
https://www.stupidlaws.com/it-is-lawful-to-kill-a-scotsman-i...
But yes, fascism typically includes an appeal to a (imagined) past glory, a close collaboration between corporations and the state, a designated enemy who is both weak enough to be an easy target and strong enough to pose an existential threat and an empowerment of the military and police force. This list doesn't cover most monarchies by any stretch of the imagination even though there are obvious overlaps.
EDIT: I also think it's simplistic to call fascism an ideology as even the historical examples share as many differences as similarities when analyzed as ideologies. I think it's more accurate to call it a strategy or mechanism, or maybe a meta-ideology. There is no "fascist economic model" for example. It's goal is to bring about a social hierarchy through the use of excessive force and typically waves of ever-expanding mass killings of undesirables. It needs an other to eliminate to maintain itself, making it inherently self-destructive.
I think the most accurate description I've seen of fascism is as an "immune system of capitalism" or "capitalism in crisis": it primarily kills the weak, those unable to work, those unwilling to work and those posing a direct or indirect threat to the social order required to maintain the owner-worker hierarchy (e.g. trade unions, socialists, even progressives) and when it eventually collapses, is overthrown or fades away, it reinstates a liberal market economy (i.e. capitalism) while having mostly maintained the power of those that were previously wealthy or were even able to expand their wealth through collaboration.
In the context of this thread, there seems to be the implication that the new laws the UN is objecting to have something to do with the arrests of protestors. After some digging, I can't find evidence that more than a few people (6) were arrested under that law (which generally seems rather bad)? And these people weren't even all charged? It seems to centre around the claimed possession of devices to lock themselves to things in public. Arresting a handful of people you think are maybe going to chain themselves to infrastructure to disrupt an internationally important event---maybe the government didnt act the best here but this hardly seems indicative of a great threat to human rights or a rise of fascism in the UK. I would personally worry more about airport security.
It was literally conceived as an economic system between socialism and capitalism. I think your interpretation is simply incorrect.