Mastering Monarchs and Minds 2026 – Ace the Absolutism and Enlightenment Challenge!

The main difference between absolutism and constitutional monarchy lies in the limits placed on the powers of the monarch. In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch's powers are restricted by a constitution or legal framework, which provides a system of checks and balances. This means that the ruler must operate within the laws of the state, respecting the rights of citizens and often sharing power with elected representatives. This structure promotes a more democratic approach to governance and often includes a clear separation of powers.

On the other hand, absolutism is characterized by the concentration of power in the hands of the monarch, who wields unchecked authority and does not have to adhere to a constitution or legal limits. The monarch's decisions are law, and their rule is often justified by divine right or tradition, without the accountability that a constitutional framework demands.

Understanding this distinction helps clarify the shift in governance philosophies that occurred during the Enlightenment, where ideas about individual rights and the role of government began to challenge the absolute power of monarchs.