I know Louis XIV is typically held up as THE example of an absolute monarchy, sort of setting the standard, but the more I read about his administration, the more it sounds like an Oligarchy or the robe nobility, or more accurately of his advisors.
The writings of Colbert and Louvois seem to suggest that they ran most of the country, making the decisions in their respective fields, and used "His Majesty" as a sort of "get it done ASAP" stamp.
Louis was involved in the affairs of these advisors and attended their meetings, but how much was he an absolute monarch, rather than a powerful centralizing figure who kept the nobility from splintering the country?
The absolutism of Louis XIV and the ancien regime has certainly remained a well debated topic in French historiography. Typically most historians would generally agree with your assessment of the situation- that Louis XIV had to work with officials and the nobility to get things done- men like Colbert could act in Louis XIV's name- but remember that did have to get things approved by him.
Louis XIV's involvement is hard to judge; his legacy is mediated to us by the documents he left behind which certainly celebrate his absolute authority- his role as the martial monarch, as the paternal monarch, and as the wise scholar monarch.
So there are a couple of ways to think about and investigate absolute monarchy; one is to simply as, did the monarch have absolute authority; or, how did the monarch portray absolute authority or create absolute authority, what signs, symbols, and rituals perpetuated absolute authority; how did people respond to absolute authority- either perpetuating and reinforcing it or subverting/challenging it?
So was Louis XIV actually an absolute monarch? Probably not. He could not do everything he wanted to- he could never be everywhere at once- and he suffered because of it. He was very dissatisfied with the performance of his diplomats during the Dutch Wars for instance; he gave them a mission and they failed. If Louis XIV were absolutely in control he should have been able to better direct the ambassadors- who literally represented him and his body- to get the peace settlement he wanted. Another test of absolute authority has been the voice of the crown in the colonies; how did colonial officials and society deal with the time lag created when sending and receiving messages and instructions from the royal court. It seems clear that very often the colonial officials in the Caribbean, North America, or South America (to say nothing of the Indian Ocean) were left to their own devices; clearly absolute authority was limited by time and space- the King could not be everywhere all the time.
Some reading suggestions on this topic:
Now; how did the monarch portray themselves as absolute if they were not in fact absolute? I usually teach this concept using Versailles as the symbol par excellence of how Louis XIV sought to establish his absolute authority through the use of symbol and ritual. Again focusing on diplomatic relations; there is a whole series of court rituals that take place when ambassadors arrive which celebrate and therefor create the image of Louis XIV as the divine (read absolute) monarch. Versailles was the site of many of these ambassadorial receptions and the tours that the ambassadors/dignitaries were taken on- especially of the gardens- were intricately mapped and choreographed- and by Louis XIV himself (we have the notes he left on how it was supposed to run). The whole tour was meant to show off the power and prestige of the monarch- the orange trees, the menagerie, the artificial lakes, the varied sculpture and garden styles; and especially the fountains and the displays they provided. The whole package of symbols was meant to display the wealth of the king, and give the impression of mastery over nature (the place was likened to Noah's arc).
Some good reading on this if you can find it.
So yes; what you wrote is basically in line with what most historians would argue. One of the questions most seek to answer now is what limits existed on absolute authority. Where did it end? What could the king not do/accomplish? How was it negotiated? These are questions that people are still answering and thinking about; and I think what you were asking as well. Some of the books listed above try to move towards answering that; but there is still a lot of research to be done.