I think there are very valid gameplay reasons for the ruler to not have absolute powers, and for many of these powers being transferred into other positions, notably the judge's.
Someone who wants to play Louis XIV pretty much can, but he needs to simply give himself both ruler and judge positions. Royals get more protection, but I think it's only fair that people who have been heavily invested in their realms for a very long time can't be simply stripped of everything due to a freak election or malicious misleading people.
To really break up the realm's traditional hierarchy, rebellions exist, and I think they have enough restrictions and risks to be the go to balanced option. And that's not just for those who want to get rid of the ones in charge, I've seen all kinds of rebellions, including bait rebellions where instigators are actually on the ruler's side or friendly-ish rebellions, where the rebel leader makes deals with the ruler against competing rebel leaders. Otherwise, there's wars. Have a neighbor invade the problematic region. But good luck convincing him, and then preventing escalation, the nobles might not agree to ending the war so early after it starts.
These options require machiavellic cunning and have large shares of risks. Which, in my opinion, should be *required* when trying to deal with royal dukes (the main issue, usually, since non-royals can be banned by the judge, an uncooperative judge can be protested out, and non-duke royals don't have much power).
