What makes a constitutional monarchy different from a absolute monarchy?

Answer 1

From what i have learned and gathered in class recently i believe that an constitutional monarchy would be better because more opinions would be considered. i think if it was an absolute monarchy then all opinions would be similar because it would all be in the family so to speak. And in a way I believe more power would be in the people's hands because the power is really outside the royal family. I don't know this may make not make any sense to anyone else but that's just how i see it. Sorry if i was not helpful.

-Tiffani

monarchy works by eating alot of consitutional chocolate. The up side of it is that it is awesome, the down side is that it smells.

Answer 2

An absolute monarchy is better because it gives someone absolute power in wartime and they are able to make decisions and implement them immediately.

This power continues during peacetime also, so the average citizen needn't worry about what decisions the government is making as there is no way of influencing their decisions anyway.

Also, citizens do not have to vote; become politically aligned; ridicule politicians; read political philosophy or study political science, read the constitution or know their civil rights.

All this stuff is boring anyway!

Well, reading boring laws, constitutions and political philosophy will no longer bore anyone as it is all a complete waste of time in an absolute monarchy... all you have to know is that the monarch has absolute power over his domain and all that dwell therein with no constitutional, legal, physical constraints whatsoever.

Yes, the monarch can do with as s/he wishes you, your property, your family and your reputation without so much as having a reason. One may happen to like what the monarch does with them, but this is usually a coincidence as it is happening due to the monarch's will.

So, the bet is that there is less whingeing amongst the general populace, especially if the monarch doesn't like whingers.

So, here is three reasons why an absolute monarchy is better than modern styles of government for Joe Citizen:

1. no worries about what the government is doing

2. no more boring studies of civics

3. no whingeing about politics to listen to

Unfortunately, nothing resembling an absolute monarchy has roamed the Earth since the Russian Revolution of 1917; so all shall have to suffer the things that such a style of government could have provided relief from.

Answer 3

Absolutism:

power concentrated/consolidated to one monarch/ruler/person

Constitutionalism:

-rulers share power/authority with representative institutions

-a written constitution is not necessary

-harness popular support+use it to magnify state power

-recognize rights of individuals and representative institutions

-claimed limited powers

Answer 4

You see, that will be a problem if there are 3 classes existing in each type of government, because it is truly IMPOSSIBLE. Want to know why? Here we go:

In Absolute Monarchy, there is no "middle-class". As long as you are not "born nobility" with name, rank and social status, you are considered a "lower class". This is why the French Revolution was triggered, not because of unhappy peasants and farmers (who were actually too repressed and too stupid to revolt), but rather the rich merchants, bankers, factory owners ,etc. (Our modern day "middleclass, but that term was non-existing back then). The rich "lowerclass" think they deserve the same treatment as nobility because they have wealth, power, status; some even exceed those of minor nobles and when they are still required to take their hats off to "nobility" they got really ticked off and start a revolution.

Of course, these middle class allied themselves with the lowerclass to bring down the nobility and the King, thus ushering in a REPUBLIC and Reign of Terror.

In a Republic, there is no "nobility". It doesn't matter you are Bill Gates, Donald Trump or Tom Cruise, they are still equal before the eyes of the law as regular guy off the street. So in a republic, there are the rich and the poor, which is represented by middleclass and lower class. Look at today's United States for example, there is no "nobility class" just because you are rich and well known. You are simply upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, lower and so on.

Now the easy parts are over, we now tackle the dodgy area of Constitutional Monarchy. In theory, this type of government can contain all three classes. But from the looks of it CA wanted CM to represent the abolished lower class by having them represented in the Parliament, thus becoming the middleclass. The ones working in the mills and farms can be seen as lower middleclass or professional middleclass. IF lowerclass is to be represented in CM, then they have to be the slaves. But that won't make sense as in a paraliament people are represented and their rights are protected.

As for transition of government types, Magna Carta is not the creation of Constitutional Monarchy. It is simply a charter stating the King cannot simply take lands and wealth from the nobles as he pleases. It says nothing about a parliament, Bill of Rights or anything. Parliament is not created until much later.

Answer 5

I think this is the same question as one I answered a few minutes ago:

What_is_the_difference_between_contitutional_monarchy_and_an_absolute_monarchy