Monarchs justified absolutism by claiming that they possessed a divine right to rule, meaning that their authority came directly from God. They argued that they were chosen to govern and protect their subjects, and that their rule was necessary to maintain order and stability in society. Additionally, some monarchs promoted the idea that they were uniquely qualified to make decisions and provide guidance, as they were believed to possess superior wisdom and knowledge.

To be enlightened there is a process to follow. The first step on the path of enlightenment is to realize what the truth is and what the myth is. We must realize that we are enveloped in the darkness of ignorance. Therefore, the first step is to identify all the myths, the mythology, the superstitions, the rituals, the fake news of this world. The moment we realize our ignorance, then the next step is to overcome the ignorance by the realization of the truth, realizing that we are not this body and mind, we are the Divine Soul. When we realize this, we are not the body, mind but we are the Soul, then to be truly enlightened we must be able to transcend the ME the mind and the ego, because the mind and the ego will constantly battle to destroy our enlightenment. If we are able to transcend the cravings of the body, the mind and the ego, then we can be truly enlightened.

limiting the rights of a minority group

Theoretically speaking, absolute power. Practically speaking, their power was limited to varying extents by the aristocracy/religion or another traditional authority.

Absolute monarchy. A dictatorship implies a republican form of government where the leader rules as a "first citizen", whereas in a monarchy, the ruler is a sovereign who embodies the state. Pharaohs fit the latter.

give sentence using despotic

Czar Nicholas ll

"..'King and Parliament struggled to determine the roles each should play in governing England."

Well Peter the great for example modernized the Russian army and the Russian navy and improved Russian farming. now king Louis XIV, everyone in the kingdom thought that his authority was coming directly from god.

peter the great

Peter the great and Catherine the Great were considered great absolute monarchs. The reason for this is that they were interested in making Russia better and stronger.

It was the "so called" Divine Right of the Monarchs.

The idea of divine right (or natural law) is the idea that the will of god is being enacted through one man (king/ Monarchic/ Hegemon/ Emperor/ G.W. Bush i.e. whatever) He (I only say he because we all know it wouldn't be a woman ;) He is the tool of god on earth so to speak. Natural law afforded Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) theopportunity to come up with absolutism the idea that all people turn power over to one man to protect all men (George Washington/ Abraham Lincoln/ Obama)

It was Germain de Stael

no, no, no.

---

By COMMIEOFTHEDAY:

Depends on what you mean by Monarchy and Monarchism. He would fit some, and if he was a monarch he would be an absolute one.

As with most fascists(expect Francoists), he was anti-monarchist. So he, and the Nazis, didn't see him as a king or a baron but just Mein Führer.

Hoped that answered your question.

Because of the numerous reforms which she made to Russia during her reign, however she wasn't a total despot because she let the nobels ginfluence her decisions greatly.

It had nothing to do with the fact she was married to Peter III - she had her lover murder him so that she could become ruler.

Absolutism cut down the rights of the people by adding new taxes and forcing peasants to become land-locked serfs. Absolutism created riots and revolts led by the angry peasants who simply wanted to live their normal lives without government interference.

Prussia-Brandenburg was always an absolute monarchy ... The best known absolute Prussian monarch is probably Frederich II (the Great), who reigned from 1740-1786. His father, Frederick William I (reigned 1713-1740) was also notorious for his absolute rule. He ruthlessly smashed the remaining powers of the regional estates (provincial assemblies of local grandees). For example, in the course of a dispute with the estates of East Prussia in 1716 he wrote in a well known decision, '[Ich] stabliere die Souveränität ... fest wie ein Rocher von Bronze' (English translation: 'I am establishing sovereignty firmly, like a rock of bronze'). Here sovereignty means in effect royal authority. As for rock of bronze, it is an odd turn of phrase, but the meaning is clear enough. Even after Prussia acquired a constitution in 1853, the kings and their ministers - especially Bismarck - sometimes gleefully violated it.

yes

Enlightened Despots were a subset of absolute monarchs that made legal, social, and educational reforms in accordance with Enlightenment principles. All Enlightened Despots were absolute monarchs, but there were a number of European absolute monarchs that were not Enlightened Despots.

YES. Louis XIV is usually held up as the quintessential example of an absolute monarchy. He weakened the power of the nobility, strengthened his direct power over locals, ran every aspect of the Kingdom of France, directed and controlled all religious activity in France, and finally, Louis XIV saw no distinction between his person and the Kingdom of France as a whole.

Yes, but only to an extent. The reason for this is because he was put into power at a young age, so he didn't learn how to maintain a kingdom until late in his rule. What made him bad was his extreme love for food, and tinkering which made him completely unaware of what had been going on outside of his palace. This is proved during the storming of the Bastille; while people were raiding the symbol of opposition he had no account of what happened on that day. So overall was he a bad monarch? Not necessarily, it was the poor timing that got to him.