Is constitutional monarchy same as absolute monarchy?

An Absolute Monarchy was the favoured way for governing countries in the Middle Ages. Basically, the monarch would have the power to make whatever laws they want and disagreeing with them is treason. Of course they had advisors, and would delegate jobs to various officials, but the monarch would have the last say in everything. The obvious disadvantage is that many monarchs were more concerned about their own enjoyment than looking after their own subject, others made stupid decisions and some were just plain mad.

A Constitutional Monarchy is where the monarch is the head of state and a representative of their country, but has virtually no power in running the country, or only has power in the event of an emergency. This sounds pointless, but sometimes having a monarchy is a good defence against military coups, for example in Spain, Thailand and Greneda. For example, when a military group held the Spanish Parliament hostage in 1981, King Juan Carlos I responded by making a TV speech urging people to stand up for their democracy. The coup soon fell apart when the perpetrators discovered no-one was supporting them.