Conversely, in a constitutional monarchy, the queen, king, or ruler has restricted authority because they govern side by side with another governing unit (Davies 699).
An absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy are two dissimilar structures arising from the monarchy form of administration. A monarch form of government is where the appointed sole leader controls the entire nation. Distinctions between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when a large number of European nations were experimenting with constitutional monarchies and absolutism. They were established with the demise of the church and in part because of holy conflicts (Davies 699). Absolute monarchies are governed by a ruling dynasty or person that has total authority over their empire, for example, Russian leaders asserted extreme autocratic authority by divine entitlement, and that the people did not have the right to regulate their authority. In a number of instances, the rulers permit advisors to work for them. The leader can also give or take concessions as he desires.
The constitutional monarchy was developed when the rulers began misusing their authorities. These people started presuming that God selected and gave them the authority. This outlook proved to be detrimental to the safety of their empires and their integrity. Moreover, constitutional monarchies have restricted authority (Davies 700). There is a chosen representative unit which develops a constitution that the ruler cannot evade, for example, England, which was constrained by the Act of Settlement 1701 and Bill of Rights 1689.