Comparison Of A Constitutional Monarchy And An Absolute Monarchy

A Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy are two different systems based off of the Monarchy Governing style in which an anointed single ruler dominates the country. Absolute Monarchy: These monarchies are ruled by a ruling person or family (dynasty) that has absolute control over their realm. In many cases, they choose to allow advisors to serve them, elected or appointed. And in many of these nations the monarch 'allows' the people the right to a legislative body. But the difference is, an Absolute monarch can take or give privileges as he or she pleases. But just because the government has complete authority doesn't make it a monarchy, an example is Communist Russia, the government has complete authority, but no one individual person does. (example: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden, Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, Tibet) Constitutional Monarchy: These monarchies have a limit to their power, there is usually an elected representative branch (parliament or congress) which put together a Constitution that the Queen or King cannot avoid. Kind of like the laws apply to a President.

However, in most constitutional monarchies, there is an 'IN CASE' clause which then allows the king or queen to suspend the Constitution and resume power as an absolute authority figure. The constitution greatly limits some monarchs to a 'figurehead' position. (examples: England, Spain, Norway, Montenegro, Georgia). An absolute monarch is one who, as the name suggests, has no limitations. If he decrees that somebody he doesn't like is to be put to death, there is no LEGAL restriction on his will. Eventually, if he is too corrupt or weak, his servants or someone may well just say 'Enough of this', turn and stab him. . . . or more likely engage in armed rebellion. But such actions are fraught with danger for the conspirator, and so are only undertaken when one knows one is going to likely engage in armed rebellion. But such actions are fraught with danger for the conspirator, and so are only undertaken when one knows one is going to be either limit the actions of the monarch or have powers of their own outside of the monarch. In a constitutional monarchy, the ruler is forced to abide by the constitution of his country. In an absolute monarchy, the ruler can pass laws without a parliament, for example. They do not have to follow any rules or guidelines and can basically do whatever they wish. 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 monarchy, 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. In an Absolute Monarchy, the King or Queen can rule without question and independently if they wish regardless of the law. Pretty much the ruler is above the law. A Constitutional Monarchy means that the law is above the ruler and there is usually some form of elections and Parliament above the King or Queen as well.

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 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 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 Grenada. 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.