Hobbes and the Absolute Sovereign

 When Hobbes speaks about a sovereign that rules within a commonwealth he speaks of one who has absolute power. This is not surprising due to the fact that in a Monarchy the king/queen would have the supreme power. However, my thought process shifted and I wondered if there could be a Monarch if there is not first a commonwealth. The answer is no, and thus this denotes some dependence on the existence of the commonwealth to maintain power as the sum of all of its parts. Essentially, due to this binding of the Monarch’s power to the commonwealth it would seem that they are not absolute in the sense that all of their decisions should conform to what is best for the commonwealth. Does the Monarch get his/her power from the commonwealth? If yes would it not seem that they are servant to it? For to have a Monarch without a commonwealth would seem ridiculous. Unless the Monarch is so much the commonwealth that it is impossible for him/her to act against him/herself? It is obvious that the Monarch is bound to the commonwealth and that this is the main benefit of Monarchy as a form of government. Hobbes points out that "the resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of human nature" (120) and that, "A monarch cannot disagree with himself out of envy or interest..." (121). These quotes show that the advantages to having a Monarch were bound to the idea that they would act in the decisive and true interest of the commonwealth from which they drew their power. However, if one is bound are they really absolute?