An absolute monarch is a ruler who has complete control over their country and its government without being limited by a constitution, laws, or other governing bodies. This type of monarch holds unlimited power and is not subject to any checks or balances.

Relative location.

Effectiveness depends on the context and goals of the governing system. Absolutism can lead to quick decision-making and implementation, but may lack accountability and citizen participation. Democracy allows for broader representation and checks and balances, but can be slower in decision-making. Ultimately, the most effective system depends on the specific needs and values of a society.

Monarchs justified absolutism by claiming that they possessed a divine right to rule, meaning that their authority came directly from God. They argued that they were chosen to govern and protect their subjects, and that their rule was necessary to maintain order and stability in society. Additionally, some monarchs promoted the idea that they were uniquely qualified to make decisions and provide guidance, as they were believed to possess superior wisdom and knowledge.

To be enlightened there is a process to follow. The first step on the path of enlightenment is to realize what the truth is and what the myth is. We must realize that we are enveloped in the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, the first step is to identify all the myths, the mythology, the superstitions, the rituals, the fake news of this world. The moment we realize our ignorance, then the next step is to overcome the ignorance by the realization of the truth, realizing that we are not this body and mind, we are the Divine Soul. When we realize this, we are not the body, mind but we are the Soul, then to be truly enlightened we must be able to transcend the ME the mind and the ego, because the mind and the ego will constantly battle to destroy our enlightenment. If we are able to transcend the cravings of the body, the mind and the ego, then we can be truly enlightened.

limiting the rights of a minority group

Theoretically speaking, absolute power. Practically speaking, their power was limited to varying extents by the aristocracy/religion or another traditional authority.

Absolute monarchy. A dictatorship implies a republican form of government where the leader rules as a "first citizen", whereas in a monarchy, the ruler is a sovereign who embodies the state. Pharaohs fit the latter.

give sentence using despotic

Czar Nicholas ll

"..'King and Parliament struggled to determine the roles each should play in governing England."

Well Peter the great for example modernized the Russian army and the Russian navy and improved Russian farming. now king Louis XIV, everyone in the kingdom thought that his authority was coming directly from god.

peter the great

Peter the great and Catherine the Great were considered great absolute monarchs. The reason for this is that they were interested in making Russia better and stronger.

It was the "so called" Divine Right of the Monarchs.

The idea of divine right (or natural law) is the idea that the will of god is being enacted through one man (king/ Monarchic/ Hegemon/ Emperor/ G.W. Bush i.e. whatever) He (I only say he because we all know it wouldn't be a woman ;) He is the tool of god on earth so to speak. Natural law afforded Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theopportunity to come up with absolutism the idea that all people turn power over to one man to protect all men (George Washington/ Abraham Lincoln/ Obama)

It was Germain de Stael

no, no, no.

---

By COMMIEOFTHEDAY:

Depends on what you mean by Monarchy and Monarchism. He would fit some, and if he was a monarch he would be an absolute one.

As with most fascists(expect Francoists), he was anti-monarchist. So he, and the Nazis, didn't see him as a king or a baron but just Mein Führer.

Hoped that answered your question.

Because of the numerous reforms which she made to Russia during her reign, however she wasn't a total despot because she let the nobels ginfluence her decisions greatly.

It had nothing to do with the fact she was married to Peter III - she had her lover murder him so that she could become ruler.

Absolutism cut down the rights of the people by adding new taxes and forcing peasants to become land-locked serfs. Absolutism created riots and revolts led by the angry peasants who simply wanted to live their normal lives without government interference.

Prussia-Brandenburg was always an absolute monarchy ... The best known absolute Prussian monarch is probably Frederich II (the Great), who reigned from 1740-1786. His father, Frederick William I (reigned 1713-1740) was also notorious for his absolute rule. He ruthlessly smashed the remaining powers of the regional estates (provincial assemblies of local grandees). For example, in the course of a dispute with the estates of East Prussia in 1716 he wrote in a well known decision, '[Ich] stabliere die Souveränität ... fest wie ein Rocher von Bronze' (English translation: 'I am establishing sovereignty firmly, like a rock of bronze'). Here sovereignty means in effect royal authority. As for rock of bronze, it is an odd turn of phrase, but the meaning is clear enough. Even after Prussia acquired a constitution in 1853, the kings and their ministers - especially Bismarck - sometimes gleefully violated it.

yes