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.
Neither of these terms makes much sense in a medieval context. He was a 'strong king'.
A absolute monarchy means the monarch acts as the sole power of authority for the state. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch acts as head of state, but is bound by a set of rules or constitution which limit their power in some way. Constitutional monarchies often have a parlimentary system, and sometimes (but not always) the monarch plays largely a ceremonial role. Constitutional monarchies have also co-existed in facist states.
the leader and the court behind him Answer: Well now we have 2 different kinds of Monarchies: Absolute and Constitutional. In an Absolute Monarchy the Monarch (King or Queen or other representative) makes the laws. In a Constitutional Monarch Parliament or Congress will make the laws.
The UK has a monarch, but the 'goverment' is elected. This is different to an absolute monarchy, where the king or queen makes the laws.
the king makes the laws like in a absolute monarchy
In a completely absolute monarchy, the King or Queen makes up the rules, and his or her subjects must abide by them.
In a country with an absolute monarchy, the monarch makes all of the decisions. Therefore, citizens in a country ruled by absolute monarchy has no decision making power.
Parliamentary monarchy is a monarchy where the leader is only used as a figurehead. (only there for show, for looks, etc. while the parliament deals with all the work. Absolute monarch is where the leader is in complete control of EVERYTHING. He isn't just there for looks, he's there because he has all power and makes all decisions. The second paragraph is correct (about the Absolute Monarchy), but the first is not quite right - a parliamentary monarchy (usually referred to as a constitutional monarchy) does NOT have to have an impotent monarch. In a parliamentary monarchy, the monarch remains the Head of State, and may also retain a variable amount of Executive Branch power. Certain parliamentary monarchs have virtually no real Executive power, while others have a significant amount, including cases where the monarch is dominant over Parliament. For example, compare the governments of Great Britain, Jordan, and Monaco. All are nominally constitutional (parliamentary) monarchies, but the amount of power retained by the monarch varies widely.
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.
No, an absolute monarchy is when a hereditary ruler makes all of the decisions for a nation. The ruler is given the throne by it being passed down through a family. These governments are nearly obsolete nowadays.
Liechtenstein's style of government is constitutional monarchy. The country is a Principality, with a Prince as Chief of State. This makes it an Hereditary Constitutional Monachy.
James II was a king (a person who inherited power through heredity) who was constrained by the laws of Parliament and the Magna Carta. This makes him a constitutional monarch. This is in contrast to an absolute monarch, who is a king who has no constraints on his power, and a constitutional president, who is a person who is voted into power by the population and has constraints on his power from other branches of government and historical political documents.