Final answer:
An absolute monarchy holds all the power, while a constitutional monarchy is limited by laws and often shares power with elected officials. Constitutional monarchies evolved from absolute ones, transitioning as societies demanded more democratic governance, like in Great Britain and Canada.
Step-by-step explanation:
Difference Between Absolute and Constitutional Monarchies
The main difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy lies in the distribution and balance of power. In an absolute monarchy, the monarch has complete and unchecked authority over the state. They are the sole source of laws and the final arbiter in policy-making, often justified by a divine right or other traditional legitimacy. By contrast, in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch's powers are limited and regulated by a written or unwritten constitution. While they may retain ceremonial duties and certain official roles, actual political power is typically exercised by democratically elected bodies, such as a parliament, and officials, like a prime minister.
Nations transitioned from absolute to constitutional monarchies due to various historical processes, such as the expansion of the middle class and the establishment of parliamentary systems seeking to limit the monarchy's power, exemplified by the British monarchy's evolution. In countries with a constitutional monarchy, such as Great Britain and Canada, the monarch serves more as a symbol of national tradition and identity rather than a source of absolute rule. Here, the prime minister and the elected government are responsible for policy and legislation, within the frameworks established by their constitutions.