Talk:Divine right of kings/Archive 1

Philosophy
No mention of Hobbes? Wasn't Leviathan the major work that debunked the Divine Right of Kings and proposed that political *stuff* the entire article in seventeenth century English. (grin) --Ihcoyc

The Bible
-I think there's some trouble with speculating as to Paul's motivations for writing what he did. I do believe someone else said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" though of course what he meant was not an inch of Jewish land for the damn Romans. What Paul is writing is almost certainly just common belief. Whether he emphasized it in order to pacify the rulers is another story, but in that era (as in fact many still believe today) people were successful either because of God's favor or because of their alliance with other supernatural powers. the librarian


 * I also rewrote that part to make it more waffly. The theme of reassuring nervous Romans is something that Bible scholars have seen in many parts of the New Testament, from the deflection of blame from Pilate to the Jews in the synoptic Gospels, to these passages in the Epistle to the Romans.  Still, it is a contemporary interpretation.  --Ihcoyc
 * I think it is Romans 13 you have in mind - My reading about Rom13 is that a ruler still needs to be legitimate and his powers can never be absolute. And the Jews were blamed, because they are blamed in the gospels, because they are guilty. --41.18.44.211 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

One good point, a couple of dodgy ones.
 * 1) at last, someone else writes mediæval, spelt like that. Obviously a proper historian! :)))
 * 2) The Divine Right of Kings wasn't merely associated with R. Catholicism. Luther too wrote and spoke in similar terms, as did others;
 * 3) It wasn't simply to increase the position of the central monarch vis-a-vis his subjects that this concept developed; it was frequently to strengthen the centralised monarchy vis-a-vis local noblemen, many of whom in earlier times had been almost semi-autonomous, with ordinary people viewing their local nobleman rather than a far away king as the 'real' source of power.

I've made changes (about five words in total) to make these points. JTD 02:48 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)


 * The association of the divine right of Kings with the Catholic or crypto-Catholic Stuart dynasty in England is an important part of the story, at least for English history. Protestant Englishmen tended to associate the divine right of kings with Catholicism, Inquisitions, Bloody Mary, prelacy, and other forms of autocratic rule; and the whole ball of wax was in turn associated with their traditional enemies, the French and Spanish.  This became an integral part of the Whig version of patriotic myth.  --Ihcoyc
 * And in this they are quite mistaken. All Reformation came from princes extending their authority, acknowledged by the Catholic Church, into regions where the Church did not acknowledge it.--84.154.111.177 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Greek word used for "government" and "powers" in Romans 13:1-3. Exousia is better translated as liberty. Romans 13 is no justification for Christian participation in the anti-christ state. http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1849 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.167.130 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Japan and China
No they didn't...


 * However, Chinese and Japanese emperors and Egyptian pharoahs and all other kings in history have routinely claimed the same right, basing in on their own religious beliefs.

Chinese and Japanese emperors most certainly did not claim divine right of kings......

-- Roadrunner

Yes they did, in fact the Japanese Emperor to this day claims to be directly descended from a Goddess, Jimmu.


 * But unlike Medieval European kings, Japanese Emperors have not in the last 1000 years been able to use this to exercise any real power.

Hlavac: I point out below that there were political machinations in the Japanese court, but the people surrounding the emperor used the "divine right." There were surely political machinations throughout Japanese and Chinese history where the reigning emperor didn't get to use his power, was a figurehead or otherwise circumscribed, but those who acted on his behalf, or in his name, most defintely used the idea that the emperor was chosen by the heavens, or a greater being(s) -- but a "god" in the broad general sense at least. Thus the emperor, or those who claimed to speak for him, exercised what we in the west call a "divine right of kings."

Chinese history is filled with emperors who claimed they were the representative of the heavens on earth.


 * Name two.

Hlavac: any brief look at Chinese history will show that every emperor claimed to the representative of heaven on earth.


 * No they didn't. A brief look at Chinese history will make it look like they did, but if you delve deeper into Chinese imperial political theory, you will find that the Emperor was not heaven's representative on earth.


 * The closest thing that you can get is mandate of heaven which is very different from divine right of kings. Peasant leader leads revolt kills oppressive king.  Mandate of heaven says that peasant leader is right and is now the legitimate king.  Divine right of kings says king is right and that the peasant leader can never be legitimate king.  Totally different.


 * Chinese emperors played an important role in mediating heaven and earth, but they were in no way sent by heaven. One could argue that they were less heaven's representative to earth than earth's representative to heaven.


 * This is *exactly* why I object to using divine right of kings to describe Chinese Emperors. You see the term son of Heaven and then start assuming the Chinese Emperors acted like European monarchs when in fact they did not.

Chinese Emperors engaged in exactly the sort of absolute rule that European monarchs did.


 * No they didn't. Chinese Emperors were subject to Confucian restrictions that were unknown to European monarchs.

And European monarchs claim to mediate between the earth and god. That one stressed the communication a little more strongly in one direction or the other is a semantic difference.


 * It was quite different. See the peasant rebellion example.


 * Just as an example, the term "son of Heaven" was intended to imply that the Emperor was subordinate to heaven and not a representative of heaven. Quite different from "son of God."

Hlavac: No European monarch ever claimed he was the "son of God." Merely that he was "annointed" by God. European monarchs also said they were subordinate to heaven, why, they even said they were subordinate to the pope, who was closer to God then they were.

To confuse the existing semantical differences between the west and the east -- for instance that our concept of God and heaven are different than eastern concepts -- is to deny the underlying fundamental belief in both parts of the world that the ruler felt he was annointed 'from above' to rule us below.


 * But the fundamental belief was *not* the same. Chinese imperial theory legitimized the ability of the population to overthrow the emperor.  European royal theory did not.  This is not an issue of semantics.  For example, a Chinese emperor could lose the mandate of heaven by governing badly.  A European king could not lose divine right of kings.


 * Many a king in Europe lost not only his divine right, but often his head. And many a king or prince was overthrown or killed by other kings or princes who claimed a better mandate from heaven than the loser had.


 * Whoa there. When European monarchs started losing their heads (Charles I and Louis XVII) it was because people rejected the divine right of kings, and the whole point of the divine right of kings was to end all of the medieval wars over who was really the king.


 * This actually had implications in the 20th century. Both Europe and Japan had imperial theories in which the Emperor reigned but did not rule.  It's really hard to use Chinese imperial theory to justify a constitutional monarchy.


 * Hlavac -- I am not justifying constitutional moarchy. I'm pointing out that rulers in antiquity to virtually this day claim(ed) to rule by the grace of god -- as defined in those cultures, with all the nuances of political machinations by real individuals.  But the right to rule came from something else other than the rights of people to rule themselves.

Hlavac


 * A lamppost is not the same as a fish even though both are not bears. The divine right of kings is different from modern democratic theory.  So is the idea of the mandate of heaven.  It doesn't mean that the two are similar.

There were supporter of a constitutional monarchy in China. Mandate of Heaven just gives the right of a king to rule but doesn't specify how he rules. Indeed some even says that Mandate of Heaven now gives Communist Party to rule China. The question in my mind is: Could a king lose his divine right during his rule? If the answer is yes, then there is really no fundamental difference between divine right and mandate of heaven. Wshun


 * No. One important aspect of the European concept of divine right of kings was that the king could not lose this right.  Even he was overthrown, he still was the legitimate king.  Very different from the mandate of heaven Roadrunner

Over-broad statements
I've removed the following:

The Divine Right of Kings refers to a worldwide doctrine claimed by nearly every monarch who has sat on any throne at any point in the past, that states as principle: The ruler is annointed by god(s) to rule his people. Though there were different religions, different gods, different codification of the principle, different historical periods and different names for the principle, however, the principle remained the same. As early as Hammurabi the divine right was put into a legal code. No monarch ever claimed to rule by any other principle. Every monarch tied himself to his state's religion and his rule was blessed by the clergy of his religion.

It is factually incorrect and mixing up concepts of royal god-given rights with the Divine Right fo Kings, which is a specific concept that existed in a specific area of the the world in a specific timeframe. Please stop mixing up a broad-based concept that existed in some (by no means all) monarchies and the DRoK, which specifically refers to something different, namely christian monarchies in the pre-mediæval and mediæval eras who based their concept of rulership on biblical and christian church teachings. FearÉIREANN 00:10 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The DRoK is a specific and formal political and religious doctrine, hence it is capitalised. The chaos not capitalising it causes was shown here earlier when some user completely misunderstood the term, thinking that it was talking generically about claims to regal divinity and regal god-given authority. This article not about some generic concept but about a specific, narrow definition of a specific concept. Things are capitalised to make it clear to the reader that you are talking about the specific, not the generic, concept. In the edit war perpetuated by the user who had the wrong idea about what was being discussed and ignored everyone else pointing out that he was missing the point, the name was inadvertently left lowercased in the opening paragraph. It should have been uppercased and bold italicised. That has now been corrected. FearÉIREANN 21:19, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Can you categorically say that no present person believes in the divine right of kings? This is the impression given; it should be rewritten to say that it has greatly fallen out of favour, but the categorical statement is something of a POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 02:14, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Middle ages
I've had to fix the article in several places when "medieval" and the "Middle Ages" were mentioned incorrectly. While there exist several definitions of Middle Ages, they all end about in 1500, with events such as the Reformation, the discoveries of the Americas and the collapse of the Byzantine empire. Certainly, neither Bossuet nor Louis XIV belong to the Middle Ages. They belong to early modern history, and more specifically to the ancien régime. David.Monniaux 10:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article seems to be awfully keen to attach DRoK to the middle ages, but this, although technically not false, is nonetheless misleading. The DRoK is a doctrine that was not well-developed or popular in the middle ages, finding full expression only after the reformation. Thomas Aquinas and the Mediæval Scholastics wrote works that can hardly be construed as supporting DRoK- quite the contrary, they affirmed numerous instances in which disobedience was permissible. It should also be noted that the Mediæval Church sought to guard its position against overly powerful Kings and Emperors (cough-Holy Roman Emperor-cough), and was not terribly keen on DRoK, at least in practice.


 * Agree - Although Divine Right of Kings has its roots back in the depths of medieval and even classical history, the practical application of this idea, and consequent opposition to it were more a product of the early modern period. It was primarily in relation to religion that the conflict arose - for the questions concerning the Pope's authority over monarchs, and the monarchs' authority over their subjects (whether or not these subjects shared their monarchs' religious beliefs) were the stuff of serious upheaval in Europe (30 Years' War, anyone?). The article should divide the appreciation of ius divinium into its constituent parts- its classical/medieval interpretations and the manner in which it manifested in the early modern period. In particular, the opposition to it is as significant in understanding it as looking at the manner in which it was institutionalised in the first place. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're quite right. In the Middle Ages, western monarchy was characterised by feudal theory. The monarch contracted with his subjects to govern and protect them in return for their obedience, taxes and military service. This contract could be broken. If the monarch broke it, his subjects could consider themselves no longer bound. They could rebel against him until their greivances were met (Runnymede and John I of England). They might even choose another monarch (Richard II overthrown, the war between Mathilda and Stephen I, for example). Then, as you say, the Church would place limits on the monarch's power.
 * The theory of the Divine Right of Kings is a development of relatively modern times. Among its exponents were James I/VI and Louis XIV. They held that, barring the law of God, there were no restraints on the royal power, and that the monarch was God's vicar in matters both temporal and spiritual. This was a far cry from monarchy as understood in pre-Rennaissance times. The references to medieval monarchy need to be ommitted except as it is helpful to an understanding of the modern theory and forms part of its development.

Dieu et Mon Droit
This is completely inaccurate. The motto refers to the claim to the throne of France, not England or Britain. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes and No. Yes, it refers to the throne of France, and, no, because the thrones were united at the time (the King of England was also the King of France), so it applies to both. --24.166.17.187 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuarts
Immensely flawed in every aspect. The Saxons lost the right of deciding their monarch in 1066. Besides, it's fluffy Whig history and Ivanhoe. 68.110.9.62 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"As mentioned above, many Divine Right rulers created absolutisms, and most rulers were greatly disliked by their citizens'. This is far fetched. What about Louis XI, Henri IV and Louis XV le Bienaimé just to give you 3 examples related to the French monarchy.86.120.169.89 21:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Structure
A detailed examination of mediaeval Geste, Trouvère and Cour d'Amours rooted in the Court of Acquitaine c1180 should be undertaken to extract the heirarchic model of chivalry which this concept depends on, and its relationship to Feudalism and the breakdown of the serf economy following the Dlack Death in 1348-50. The autonomy of the heirarchy was circular at the top, however, until c1440 when Pope Eugene (Eugenius) IV dispensed with the Vatican Council which hitherto kept the papacy under the thrall of the top European monarchs, France, England, the Holy Roman Emperor(Germany), Spain and Portugal. I suspect you will find that it crystallised either in Charles V of Spain or Phillip II, and certainly it became a fully-fledged concept in the early 17th Century absolutist monarchies. Jelmain 09:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Limitations to Monarch's power
"It is related to the ancient (not now) Catholic philosophies regarding Monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. However, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence the monarch is always subject to the following powers which are regarded as superior to the monarch:

(1) The Old Testament in which a line of kings was created by God through the prophecy of Jacob/Israel who created his son Judah to be king and retain the sceptre until the coming of the Messiah, alongside the line of priests created in his other son, Levi. Later a line of Judges who were, in effect, kings, was created alongside the line of High Priests created by Moses through Aaron. Later still, the Prophet Samuel re-instituted the line of kings in Saul, under the inspiration of God.

(2) The New Testament in which the first Pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor.
 * Peter was no pope. --41.18.44.211 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(3) The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne."

What on Earth is the deal with the first two? Are they claiming that a Catholic monarch's power was bound by that of the Old Testament's kings, Judges and High Priests? Or is it saying that these were subject to the priesthood of their day and therefore drawing a parallel to the situation that the Church wanted between it and the Catholic Monarch? If it is it should say so.

Number 2, if anything justifies the Catholic Monarch (Or at least the Holy Roman Emperor, a Catholic monarch) as above the church. Is it supposed to literally imply that the Catholic monarch is considered subordinate theoretically to the Roman Emperor? (Presumably not the one at Constantinople!)

The point I'm making is that even theoretically Catholic monarchs were and are not considered subordinate to defunct offices such as the Judges of Israel or the Roman Emperor. I'm sure there were very valid reasons for their inclusion, which I've probably failed to even realise, but at the moment they don't make those reasons clear... So, whoever does understand them, would you please explain their inclusion? Furius (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The points mentioned are not directly the limitations. It seems to be an attempt to theologize in the typical Roman Catholic way, which I want to say without any contempt but with smiling sympathy... Thus there is first a look at the fact that the Catholic Church does acknowledge the kings. Then a view into the Old Testament how there had been kings then. Then one into the New Testament, and then one into the Tradition. - The Kings in the Old Testament were not subject to the Priests, which in my opinion is clear to every reader. Interestingly they were subject to the Prophets (in the Prophets' opinion, which is the one that matters), and that might throw a light on the difficult way the Catholic Church did claim over them what could be described as a practical superiority (seldom used), but what would better be called in formal terms a "state of emergency exception" of the visible head of the Spiritual Realm against the, souvereign, head of the Secular Realm. - There has indeed been the theory that any monarch, especially a Catholic one, is subordinate to the Roman Emperor, an office that was not defunct until 1806, and that even after 1806 a Joseph Roth ascribes in a tone of self-evidency to the Austrian Emperor. The King of Bohemia was (in the probable understanding of the laws) literally a vassal of the Roman Emperor but that did nowise diminish his rank among kings, rather (or so he would have said himself) it was a specific honour for him to be a prince-elector. In practice, and theory also, this role of the Emperor would be little more than a first-among-equals, but as first-among-equals it was, I think, even acknowledged by the other powers. The Pope was one notable exception. Being subject to none but Christ, it is impossible that he, even when ruling a state, be subject to another man on earth. However the Pope complicatedly did acknowledge the Emperor as Emperor of Rome, though it was himself without any superior on Earth who ruled in Rome. This exceptional role of the Pope might have led to the interesting fact that in the Middle Ages, all major kingdoms were literally papal vassals. With the exception of the Frankish Empire, ruled in share by a college of two kings, one of whom was Roman Emperor (and King of Germany), while the other was King of France. --84.154.111.177 (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

With the above, I think one must clarify that "all major kingdoms" "in the Middle Ages" refrences Western and Central European states, not East European and most Balkan states south and east of Croatia and possibly pre-Muslim Bosnia, since none of these areas accepted Roman claims and form a seperate cultural sphere even to this day. The umbrella term of "Europe" has been generally used here to refer to what is properly WESTERN Europe, and totally ignores that EASTERN Europe experienced a totally different history, usually in isolation from the West. The above demonstrates that that which was for the West reality was for the East a ficticious story.

It is very obvious that in order to maintain an illegitimate claim to the Western Roman Empire, which had disappeared around 200 years earlier, Charlemagne needed to seperate the Bishop of Rome from the Byzantine Church to avoid the influence of the Byzantine Emperor, who was the rightful sovreign even of the Roman Patriarch. To do this, Charlemagne had to find some sort of doctrine to propegate in the west, because Heresy was the only way to discredit and depose leaders (bishops or kings) in those days, so he chose to enforce the Filioque clause addition from a long ago Spanish council in his territory and declared that the Greeks had deleted from the Creed something that was never in the legitimate Symbol and never said in the East before. To greater enhance the seperation of the Roman Patriarch from the Emperor and the other Christian Patriarchs, the Bishop of Rome's Primacy as first among equals was turned into Roman supremacy over the entire church, a concept that had never existed before. Roman supremacy demoted the other four Patriachs to the position of ceremonial figureheads and essentially non-existant as far as the Western Roman Church was concerned as their existance, or lack there of, was rendered meaningless since only Rome had any authority. With Rome installed unilaterally as the only real religious authority in the entire world, it would have been possible for Charlemagne or his sucessors to claim power over the legitimate Roman Emperor in Byzantium tying the Roman Bishop's self proclaimed supremacy over the entire Church with the Frankish monarch as rightful Emperor of the entire Roman World. One Church of Rome (Roman Pope), one Emperor of Rome (the Holy Roman Emperor). The fate of Western Civilization, and Western Christianity, was decided by Charlemagne. --71.240.139.92 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality Problems!
We have got loaded language here. And I quote:

"The reasoning was impeccable. If a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? "

This is objectivity at its worst.


 * Oh, it's near naked subjectivity, and unencyclopedic without limits. Since you forgot to insert ~ giving a nice signature and a dating of your most relevant comment, I'll now commenting that this so obvious error is no longer in the text. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

His, Her, It's, Them's, All Y'Alls. Gender Issues
While we SAY Divine Right of Kings, we MEAN Divine Right of Monarchs. Therefore, I say and mean that it also applies to queens and empresses, or at least CAN. Therefore, to wit, am reverting reversion of reversion of subtle sexism reversion. Ratagonia (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why would you change the name? That's really backwards. Just mention it includes Queens as well. Beam 19:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just call the article "Divine right"? Funnyhat (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Ratagonia has a point. Those "divine rights" certainly also applied to some few ruling queens in the right hereditary position. The question is how sexist they were in the 1500ths and 1600ths. Maybe they intended it as Divine right of kings since some old-style interpretation of a statement this-or-that in the Bible? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a reason why we are capitalizing the words "Right" and "Kings" in the title? I do not believe "divine right" to be a proper noun, and neither is "king" (unless it is part of a specific person's title). 68.62.0.178 (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Scots language
When Jim VI wrote for his son he wrote in Scots as the monarch of Scotland, and so I've changed the lead from "The English textbooks" to "The Scots textbooks". Whether or not these textbooks were subsequently adopted in England, it's confusing to suggest that they began as English textbooks. Note that the Basilikon Doron seems to have been preceded by Jim's The Trew Law of Free Monarchies so perhaps that should be mentioned. If there are any Tudor texts setting out the same ideas, they should be noted. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Roman law
This article is very patchy indeed, and some of it is written from a Catholic confessional point of view (for example, there is no Biblical doctrine of the two swords, the Biblical incident of the two swords was used in support of a later Church doctrine).

Missing is a treatment of the growth of imperial absolutism in the Roman Empire; the Pope versus Emperor disputes in the Middle Ages (Guelfs and Ghibellines); and the Renaissance Roman lawyers who created the theory in its modern form by reviving the imperial Roman concepts. I haven't the knowledge to treat all this, but someone should. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A more essential problem
A more essential problem in this article lies in the fact that the theory of Royal Absolutism is a specific political theory, proper to early modern times. James I of England and Scotland introduced it to those nations in the 17th century. He wrote treatises on it. Yet there is no developed treatment of this. Nor on how the theory developed with his son, Charles I. Nor of how it developed on the continent in the 18th century. The article seems to ground Absolutism in medieval thought. Yet the idea of feudal governance is about as far removed from absolutism as one could imagine.--Gazzster (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

See Middle Ages above. This, I believe, is a really important article - but it needs a bit of an overhaul at the moment. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Part of the difficulty here is equating Absolutism with Divine Right.The two concepts are not the same. Another is defining Divine Right theory. As we've said, it is a specific political theory. Yet it is also a means of claiming right of succession, as in, 'Elizabeth II claims to rule by divine right'. --Gazzster (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to the Divine Right of Kings (nee' American Revolution)
This article says that the American Revolution undermined this philosophy. But the British crown had already denounced it's claim to divine authority after the Protestant William of Orange overthrew the Catholic James II in 1688. So since the American Revolution was against a monarch who did not claim divine authority at all is that really an accurate statement? --192.251.163.33 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "American Revolution" is not found so I assume the end of the &sect; this thread now refers to is what is referred to. It does leave confused the collapse of the Regime Ancien in the bourgeois revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries with the particular doctrine this article is about. Lycurgus (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vatican still practices divine right?
ISTR reading that the Vatican was the only country left which believes in the divine right of it's ruler. If it's true, it seems worth mentioning. 212.84.106.37 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strange as this may sound, the Catholic Church does not believe in the unlimited power of the Pope. The Pope's powers are in practice limited by traditional belief and custom, the (believed) divine constitution of the Church, and the rights and privileges of bishops, episcopal conferences and other groups.He could not, for example, decide that there are four persons in the Trinity instead of three, as traditionally believed.Neither could he sell St Peter's, which is the patrimony of the Roman Church, not of him personally. But the position of the Bishop of Rome is pretty much sui generis, and better dealt with in other articles.--Gazzster (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By definition the Pope is anointed by God, and is supposed to be God's representative on earth. This is the reason he is supposed to have the authority to excommunicate kings. The sticking point that the Papacy and Papal States never had much material power to carry out their material purpose quite often, in history, meant that their power was subject to the loyalty of the general flock throughout Europe (perhaps most obviously shown at the calling of the 1st crusade by Urban II). Monarchs naturally didn't like this yoke of Vatican supremacy imposed upon them - leading to a mass exodus of princes away from the Vatican's control in the wake of the waning influence of the Holy See (Great Schism, Black Death, loss of the Outremer, printing, 100 Years' War and Avignon Papacy, etc, etc). Henry VIII of England was an amusing case in point - from defender of the faith to heretic over the authority to annul marriage (although the Tudor king's ego always augured badly for long term relations with the Vatican). It is most interesting to notice with what ease England progressed into the Reformation. The Divine Right of Kings was just a reflection, and justification, of what was a sea change in the power of some European monarchs. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is not that the Pope can excommunicate kings - that's a self-evidence, and not even a question. The real question is only, and can only be, that the Pope claims power to attach to such excommunications some papal directives that cut back their secular powers as well. --84.154.111.177 (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question would be if the Bishop of Rome really even has an real power at all. From the Orthodox Christian prespective, the Bishop of Rome presently has no authority except that which his own community (granted a large one) gives him (like the Dali Lama in Tibetan Buddhists). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.139.92 (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

EB 1911
The 1911 Encyclopedia, under the subject of "Kings", is quite interesting on divine right. I'll quote at length; I may have a go at incorporating some of this into the article at some point, though very happy for someone else to have a go sooner.


 * 'The theory of the "divine right" of kings, as at present understood, is of comparatively modern growth. The principle Divine that the kingship is "descendible in one sacred Right of family," as George Canning put it, is not only still Kings. that of the British constitution, as that of all monarchical states, but is practically that of kingship from the beginning. This is, however, quite a different thing from asserting with the modern upholders of the doctrine of "divine right" not only that "legitimate" monarchs derive their authority from, and are responsible to, God alone, but that this authority is by divine ordinance hereditary in a certain order of succession. The power of popular election remained, even though popular choice was by custom or by religious sentiment confined within the limits of a single family. The custom of primogeniture grew up owing to the obvious convenience of a simple rule that should avoid ruinous contests; the so-called "Salic Law" went further, and by excluding females, removed another possible source of weakness. Neither did the Teutonic kingship imply absolute power. The idea of kingship as a theocratic function which played so great a part in the political controversies of the 17th century, is due ultimately to Oriental influences brought to bear through Christianity. The crowning and anointing of the emperors, borrowed from Byzantium and traceable to the influence of the Old Testament, was imitated by lesser potentates; and this "sacring" by ecclesiastical authority gave to the king a character of special sanctity. The Christian king thus became, in a sense, like the Roman rex, both king and priest. Shakespeare makes Richard II. say, "Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king" (act iii. sc. 2); and this conception of the kingship tended to gather strength with the weakening of the prestige of the papacy and of the clergy generally. Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes; after the Reformation he became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also. In England it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy - dalmatic, alb and stole - continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see Coronation). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his "sacring," but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward.and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV., would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title. In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its extremest logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century. Of its exponents the most distinguished was Hobbes, the most exaggerated Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the Civil War, the royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people. In one case the king's power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV.'s famous saying: "L' Nat, c'est moi I" or limitable only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr"; it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II. made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king; and the revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. These events had effects far beyond England. They served as precedents for the crusade of republican France against kings, and later for the substitution of the democratic kingship of Louis Philippe, "king of the French by the grace of God and the will of the people," for the "legitimate" kingship of Charles X., "king of France by the grace of God." The theory of the crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action, and yet also "by the grace of God," is in strict accordance with the earliest traditions of the English kingship; but the rival theory of inalienable divine right is not dead. It is strong in Germany and especially in Prussia; it survives as a militant force among the Carlists in Spain and the Royalists in France (see Legitimists); and even in England a remnant of enthusiasts still maintain the claims of a remote descendant of Charles I. to the throne (see Jacobites).'

--Merlinme (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * @user:Merlinme 9 years later I have taken you advise. The article "King" with the section "Divine Right of Kings." now exists on Wikisource:
 * --PBS (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * --PBS (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Declaration of Arbroath
In 1320, the declaration of Scottish independence stated that it is right of the people to choose a king.

This is worth mentioning. --81.130.197.118 (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Conditionality of divine right.
"However, while the divine right of kings granted unconditional legitimacy, the Mandate of Heaven was conditional." Isn't it rather the other way round. Not even under absolutism (which is only applicable to a certain part of the modern era) kings rights were really uncoditionally. While the East Asian kings were ruling far more unrestricted. It also seems they were even more revered by the people. --41.18.44.211 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rather depends upon what we mean by 'unconditional legitimacy'. In the European West, ruling by divine right meant ruling by God's will. Yet the divine 'will' was often cotingent on political factors. To use a prominent example, the monarchs of the United Kingdom rule by 'divine right' ('Dieu et mon droit'). However the divine will has been manifested through Parliament, which has decreed that the monarch must not be a Catholic nor married to a Catholic. Further it has ruled that the monach must agree to be directed by its counsel. In France and othe nations the right to rule was contingent on being male. In most countries a monarch had to agree to govern according to the customs and laws of the people before he or she could be crowned.The people often felt themselves free to rebel against their monarch in orde to redress a wrong, on the basis that the monarch contracted between himself and their subjects to govern them in return for their fealty.For these and othe reasons 'unconditional legitimacy' is a poor phrase to use. Gazzster (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course conquest conferred a 'divine right' to rule.Gazzster (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The sentence is right, strictly speaking, while the effects may be vice-versa. A King by divine right has unconditional legitimacy, that is, versus his subjects. If he acts contrary to the divine will, he has no judge above him besides God (I leave out the question whether in medieval occident, the Emperor could maybe judge simple kings) and, catholicwise, besides the Pope: but even the superiority of the Pope is, in case the king in question does not willfully submit to it, somewhat of a superiority with a stomach ache, and only due to the absence of any better solutions. The people may overthrow him and maybe morally entitled to do so, but even in rebellion they act as driven by necessity and not as passing a judgment. A tyrant is to be endured if the sum of goods and evils coming from tyranny is smaller than the sum of goods and evils coming from rebellion (such as the evil of a civil war). By the way, the English Parliament as far as I know has never declared to declare God's will; the Monarch swears to abide with customs and laws which include that no new law is given against Parliament's will, but contrary to a popular opinion the Monarch isn't even by any means obliged to grant a Royal Assent. - The Mandate of Heaven, I hear, was conditional, namely under the condition that it be not overthrown by rebellion. That says, the rebel is a sinner if he loses, but rebellion is meritorious if it succeeds: an absurd perplexity, I allow to myself to say. --77.4.118.194 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The monarch of the United Kingdom is obliged in law to give the royal assent to acts of Parliament, on the principle that the monarch may never act without his or her Parliament (the concept of Queen-in-parliament). True, it is said the monarch gives her assent by convention. But convention in Westminster constitutional government nevertheless binds. If the monarch were faced with a bill to which he or she could not in conscience assent to, the monarch would be obliged to abdicate, as the King of the Belgians did (albeit temporarily) in order not to give his assent to an abortion bill. After the Civil War, the powers of the English King were transferred to Parliament, or rather, shared indissolubly between king and Parliament. But the British monarchy is not perhaps a good example of rule by divine right. It is difficult to distinguish between 'rule by divine right' and 'absolute rule', though the two are not the same. THe Emperor, for example, ruled by divine right but his rule was not absolute, limited as it was by the rights and privileges of his subjects. It seems to me that when we talk about 'absolute rule', there are few examples of it in history. Charles I before the civil war might be one. Louis XIV might be another. But in most other circumstances monarchs were limited by local laws and customs, privileges of the nobility and of legislatures, religious strictures and the Church.Gazzster (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, in not giving a royal assent the Queen would not act without her Parliament, but she simply would not act. Is there a written law that says convention binds? If not, the Monarch might be unwise in ordinary matters not to follow convention, might even be morally (but not legally) obliged in ordinary matters to follow convention, but could always say her conscience overrides convention. What the King of the Belgians did was probably the wisest thing he could do. However according to Art. 109 of the Belgian Constitution, the King does not only promulgate but also, previously, sanctions the laws. That says explicitly that no law is law without Royal Assent. The King has probably, and not without reason, felt it was his moral duty, even at the price of an abortion law, to prevent a rebellion which would have resulted in an abortion law and other things. However, if the King had not stepped down from power and neither given his Royal Assent, the law would not have been law. The government declared the King incapable of fulfilling the royal function and this was a rebellion, and I think even the King's own advisal (which one hears about) to do so doesn't make it less of a rebellion. For the King didn't advise so because he wanted the advice to be taken, but only in sort of a resignative way, as if saying: "I won't take arms to defend me", and to declare a conscious (and conscientous) King incapable doesn't have any justifying appearance. --84.154.111.177 (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold it, this isn't a forum, let's talk sources
I'm afraid that all I see above is the sort of discussion you'd find on a forum. Since articles should be written by using what reliable sources say about a subject, our opinions don't matter and we really shouldn't be discussing them. So if there's disagreement, what do the sources say? Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Two "Dubious-Discuss" in lede
I have queried the mention of the Tudors in connection with support for the DRK since I know of no hard evidence for it and some authors state that James I/VI introduced it into English political thought. Secondly, the statement that the theologians/divines held tenure at the monarch's pleasure is technically at least incorrect. Up to the major reforms of ecclesiastical law in the UK, once a cleric had been given tenure in England (that is, taken possession of his benefice) it was almost impossible to get him out short of proven misconduct. If the article means to say that many senior appointments were made by the Crown and royal favour was the way to obtain them, this is true but in that case it would be advisable to say it in a less misleading way.Jpacobb (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Divine right of kings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927064708/http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/aquinas/regicide.html to http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik/aquinas/regicide.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

"Divine Right" Briefly Explained in Opener
Greetings. Upon reading through the article I was surprised to find not a single mention of why the "divine right" is considered just that. I edited-in a brief synopsis of the metaphysical reasoning behind the "divine right," which is now in the earliest part of the article, where it belongs. Without this explanation, the whole article fails to address exactly what the "divine right" means and from what logical/metaphysical foundation it follows. Otherwise the whole thing comes off as rather arbitrary to the reader, which really won't due for an article about a topic as important as what may be civilization's most common political system. 2001:579:189C:2F00:74D0:B39F:5CB4:2BAA (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Origins
So first off, what is the "pagan" world? From the perspective of non-Christians, they are still pagans; many of the stories, rituals, and beliefs of paganism still exist today. See, e.g., http://a.co/dHkHgy

Second, "mashiach" (מָשִׁיחַ) doesn't mean "king"; it means "messiah." King is "melech" (מלך). See any Hebrew-English dictionary.

Chaim1221 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

James VI and I
The section on "Scots texts of James VI of Scotland" begins, 'The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597–1598 by James VI of Scotland. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the powers of a king, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick that a king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from the God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable".'

It then says, "James I based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible."

CONFUSION: It's unclear from this sentence if he "based his theories on ... the Bible" BEFORE he became James I or only after, which seems implied by having "James I" the subject of this sentence. However, careful reading of the previous sentence makes it clear that he "based his theories on ... the Bible" when he wrote the textbook Basilikon Daron in 1597-1598, BEFORE he became James I. I just modified this section accordingly. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

South Asian Kings, shorter clarification text?
In the South Asian Kings section, I was surprised by how many sentences in the bottom half were devoted to disproving (or clarifying) the first half. If indeed the quotation in question should be taken with a grain of salt, then I recommend the objections be reduced to 1 or 2 sentences. Something along the lines of: "but there's evidence to support that the Dravidian reference may refer to leaders outside of South Asia". As is, the bottom half of the article covers a wide range of topics (everything from nuclear blasts to genetics!). While the clarifications are interesting I found it jarring and it was difficult on my first read-through to pinpoint what the main point of objection was. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefforthober (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph as it was a recent edit, unencyclopaedic, borderline racist and concerned the (pseudo-)history of India, not the divine right of monarchs. Stevebeck (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)