Why did constitutional monarchy develop in england while absolute monarchy continued in russia?

russia was less economically developed than england and relied on a strong monarch to address the nation's issues.
russian monarchs like peter the great increased the power of the nobility, while english monarchs like elizabeth i refused to consult with the english parliament.
russian monarchs deeply resented the intrusion of religious authorities into affairs of state, while english monarchs believed they owed allegiance to the head of the church.
russia thrived economically under absolute monarchs, while england relied on parliament to rebuild after the english civil war.

Russia thrived economically under absolute monarchs, while England relied on Parliament to rebuild after the English Civil War.

Option D

Explanation:

England developed under constitutional monarchy but Russia decided to develop under absolute monarchy only. The reason for this was that under absolute monarchy, Russia developed on economic grounds so it did not want to change from absolute to constitutional monarchy.

England wanted the parliament to re build the infrastructure that was destroyed during the civil war. So it wanted to change to constitutional monarchy so that the parliament take responsibility of re building the infrastructure.

the   square   deal   was   a   program   where   the   government gave any one   a fair   chance   to succeed

answer; /// i believe that the correct answer is (divison of labor);