An Absolute Monarchy was the favoured way for governing countries in the Middle Ages. Basically, the monarch would have the power to make whatever laws they want and disagreeing with them is treason. Of course they had advisors, and would delegate jobs to various officials, but the monarch would have the last say in everything. The obvious disadvantage is that many monarchs were more concerned about their own enjoyment than looking after their own subject, others made stupid decisions and some were just plain mad.
A Constitutional Monarchy is where the monarch is the head of state and a representative of their country, but has virtually no power in running the country, or only has power in the event of an emergency. This sounds pointless, but sometimes having a monarchy is a good defence against military coups, for example in Spain, Thailand and Greneda. For example, when a military group held the Spanish Parliament hostage in 1981, King Juan Carlos I responded by making a TV speech urging people to stand up for their democracy. The coup soon fell apart when the perpetrators discovered no-one was supporting them.
No. An absolute monarch has the power to basically do what they want. They can create new laws without any input from anyone else, and not obeying them is treason. They may have advisers, but it's the monarch who gets the final say in things.
A constitutional monarch, however, is restricted in their power by a set of rules - or constitution - laid out by other people. Many monarchs today are constitutional monarchs, and don't really have any real power at all. Elizabeth II, for instance, may technically be the Queen, but it's parliament who rule the UK, and she doesn't have an input into the making of laws.
The difference between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy is that in the absolute monarchy, the monarch holds the supreme or absolute powers, whereas in the constitutional monarchy, the head of state is a hereditary or elected monarch
The similarities between a monarchy and constitutional monarchy are that their are both monarchies.
An absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.
The main difference between absolute monarchy and constitutional monarchy is that in an absolute monarchy, the monarch has absolute control and power, whereas, in a constitutional monarchy, the power of the monarch is limited by the constitution. Monarchy is a form of governance in which a single person acts as the head of state.
No. England, which is part of the United Kingdom, is a Constitutional Monarchy.
After the French Revolution, the constitutional monarchy was briefly replaced by an absolute monarchy, then democracy.
In an absolute monarchy, there is no limit on the power of the ruler. A constitutional monarchy imposes certain limits on the ruler's power. In the UK, the monarch's role is largely ceremonial.
absolute monarchy and constitutional monarch.
It is between constitutional monarchy and absolute monarchy
national monarchy (medieval times, rising of western leadership) absolute monarchy (think Louis XIV, Frederick the Great, etc etc) constitutional monarchy (Modern monarchies)
Constitutional monarchy is the type of government currently in place in England. The change from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy took place in 1688 with the Glorious Revolution.
The mian kinds are Absolute monarchy and Constitutional Monarchy. With an absolute monarchy, there is one spreme ruler who controls all of the land and the people with no higer form of government above with. With a constitutional monarchy, There is a ruler who is the leader of a government but does not have supreme power. (does not control everything but is still a part of the government)