what is the difference between a constiuional monachy and a monarchy?

Question

help again

Answer 1

The usual distinction is between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy. In the latter, an absolute monarchy, there are no formal restraints on the monarch's power. That is, nothing that the monarch does can be considered illegal. Now in practice there usually are restraints either of custom or power if say, the Church or the nobility are powerful in their own right. In a constitutional monarchy it is spelled out clearly, usually in a constitutional document, what the limits are of the King's power, what the King (or Queen) may do and what he may not do. Sometimes in a constitutional monarchy the monarch retains important powers but sometimes, as in Britain today, the monarch has a mostly symbolic role with little real authority.

Answer 2

Well, there is something missing. There is the constitutional monarchy and the absolute monarchy.
There are no more absolute monarchies in the world anymore, unless you consider the comunist dictatorships that still exist.
In the absolute, all the power came from the king, who could do whatever he wanted.
In the constitutional, the Constitution ( a set of rules ) dictated what could be done and what not. Besides, the king had no authority. The power came from a prime minister or a similar position, who was elected by the people. This is the current situation in the very few monarchies that still exist

Answer 3

A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy in which a king or monarchy rules with limitations provided by a separate governing body such as parliament under a written constitution.
A monarchy alone is a system of rule in which the king is the sole legislator, executive and judiciary meaning that the king alone makes, enforces and decides the legitimacy of laws with no restrictions or separate governing body to stand up against him.

Look back at the execution of Charles I. Because of his failure to convene parliament, he was beheaded. For a while Oliver Cromwell held military power but in the Glorious Revolution constitutional monarchy was restored under William and Mary.

Answer 4

Your question is badly phrased. I think what you are asking is what the difference is between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy. 'Monarchy' without qualification merely means the head of state is a King or Queen, without defining in anyway their powers etc. So to answer the question as I have rephrased it.

A constitutional monarch rules under a 'constitution', or set of rules which defines his or her powers and the powers or other organs of state, such as a Parliament and defines how each interact. The monarch cannot act on his or her own or take arbitrary decisions. The UK is a constitutional monarchy. (although the 'constitution' as such is not written)

An absolute monarch can do what he or she likes. He or she is subject to no checks or balances on the exercise of their power, he or she can. for example, declare war, raise taxes, make legal rulings etc., and no one can argue against them. I know of no absolute monarchy in the 21st century. The best example, however, of an absolute monarchy is Louis XIV of France who, i am pleased to say after typing the foregoing, wiki describes as an 'archetype absolute monarch' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France