>>8883
It's not a question about absolutism, but monarchy. You anons keep getting assmad at monarchists that actually have some ideal of monarchy (rule of one) in their heart apart from aristocracy (rule of few).
Absolute comes from the notion of 'absolved' from Roman law and the ascribed 'absolute monarchy' meme is usually just a jab at monarchy conceptually, that one man should rule, not the royalist argument of the best man and general circumstances where he should be 'absolved'–absolute–where the law cannot measure.
Royal constitutionalists are always butthurt because they don't have a heart for monarchy. They like democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. That is the heart of constitutionalism, but often confused for legal monarchy–the spirit of this institution is mixing all three rather than making monarchical arguments. Imo, the royal constitutionalists usually go towards democratic/aristocratic talking points, like muh check your balance (implying, again, mixed branches of all three, not specifically monarchy).
What matters to the 'absolutist' is that the monarchy is the sovereign power and central to the body-politic. A political body has a center, this 'decentralization' business is pretty daft talk.
It speaks for itself how upset these people are over the notion of monarchy, rule of one, like any other normalfag these days.