I'm thinking of an oligarchy.
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.
very centralized the monarchy had the majority of the power
In a constitutional monarchy, like in England, the monarch does not have much power at all, because there is a constitution. In an absolute monarchy, they have absolute power. In a constitutional monarchy, the power of the monarch is limited by some set of rules or document (e.g. a constitution), which sets out the powers given to the monarch. Other powers are given to other groups, commonly judges and a legislature. How much power is given to each group and the monarch varies widely, and is entirely up to the constitution of the country in question. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch is presumed to be God-(or other deity)-ordained, and rules with no limits on their power.
Not technically, it's a constitutional monarchy which means that while the queen is the official head of state she has no official power there. They have their own prime minister who acts like the American President.
monarchy- all power under king and no freedom of peoples
This depends on what powers the monarch retains. If the monarch is an absolutist, monarchy will be in opposition to democracy. However, numerous monarchies are constitutional monarchies where the monarch has ceded some or most of his power to democratically elected institutions.
A seventeenth-century European king would most likely support the theory of absolute monarchy, which posits that a monarch holds supreme authority and is not bound by laws or regulations imposed by a governing body. This theory, championed by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, justified the king's divine right to rule, asserting that the monarchy's power was ordained by God. Such a belief reinforced the king's control over both his subjects and the state, aligning with the period's political landscape.
Monarchy was where a single person had absolute rule, like a king. Succession was through the blood line. Democracy is where the public voted for a person to rule, and that person shared power equaly with a senate or congress. Put simply, Monarchy: Blood line, all power. Democracy: Vote, split power.
In an absolute monarchy, the king has complete power over society. In a constitutional monarchy, the king only has as much power as the constitution grants him. In some places, like Morocco, the constitutional monarch is very powerful, but not quite absolute. In some places like Britain, the constitutional monarch is so weak that it is practically an irrelevancy.
I'll assume you are referring to constitutional monarchy, like that in the UK. There is no one typical opinion, but I would say most opinions fall into one of two categories: -Those the find the monarchy to be quaint and archachic and sometimes even a little silly, but generally a charming way to identify on a patriotic level. -Those that draw from America's historic revolt against England and view monarchy as tyrannical regardless of any limitations on power.
they are both types of government. anarchy is no government, and monarchy is like a king or queen. also, they share the root "Archy" , which i think means government, I'm not sure. so, yeah, i hope that helped. N
rule his country , like a dictator .. he has all power the type of government would be a monarchy