How may a constitutional monarch be similar to an absolute monarch?

A Constitutional Monarchy and an Absolute Monarchy are two differant systems based off of the Monarchy Governing style in which and annointed single ruler dominates the country.

Absolute Monarchy: These monarchies ar ruled by a ruling person or family (dynasty) that has absolute control over their realm. In many cases they choose to allow advisors to serve them, elected or appointed. And in many of these nations the monarch "allows" the people the right to a legislative body. But the difference is, an Absoltue monarch can take or give privlages as he or she pleases. But just because the governemnt has complete authority doesnt make it a monarchy, an example is Communist Russia, the government has complete authority, but no one individual person does. (exmples: Saudi Arabia, Oman, Jordan, Monaco, Denmark, Sweden, Thailand, Cambodia, Nepal, Tibet)

Constitutional Monarchy: These monarchies have a limit to their power, their is usually an elected representitive branch (parliament or congress) which put together a Constitution that the Queen or King cannot avoid. Kind of like the laws apply to a President. However in most constitutional monarchies their is a "IN CASE" clause which then allows the king or queen to suspend the Constitution and resume power as an absolute authority figure. The constitution greatly limits some monarchs to a "figure head" position. (examples: England, Spain, Norway, Montenegro, Georgia)