Theoretically, yes. Really, though, no. They don't. Kings/queens get assassinated... civil war breaks out frequently, and a nearly-absolute power is always a bad idea.
It also depends to some degree on the king/queen, but even when the king/queen is a good one there will still be people upset. If you are good to the people, that usually means you are taking opportunities for exploitation away from those in position above them.
absolute monarchy=communism where people have some rights...I'm not sure it would work at all, jmo though.
Well subject for debate Thailand has a monarch the revered and 100% respected King supported by a floundering Military Junta England has a Queen & Royal Family long ridiculed and criticized by the public, press and media, and running the Government you have the 'clown' Blair Absolute monarchy seems to work in Monaco though for the Rich & Famous
An /absolute/ monarchy is a dictatorship and is, as such, doomed to eventual failure. The situation in England demonstrates - in my opinion - the only sustainable and in any case tentative system of monarchy: a figurehead enjoying theoretical ultimate power, certain to be removed if attempting to exercise that power against mandated government.
I think there have been episodes of absolute monarchy working for brief periods: Augustus ruled with great efficiency for some four decades. Certainly one could say the Khan's exhibited a remarkably efficient monarchy for about 80 years. Queen Elizabeth perhaps... The problem seems always to lie in the fact that once absolute power has been established it becomes the presumption, and by nothing more than the simple fortune of hereditary, senseless of ability, without demand of character or principle, and enjoyed by the most dysfunctional or ruthless of princes. Look no further than North Korea.