Divine Right of Kings

Louis XIV as the sun

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. It asserts that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God.

The origins of the theory are rooted in the medieval idea that God’s had bestowed earthly power to the king, just has he had given spiritual power and authority to the church, centering on the pope. With the rise of nation-states however, the theory of Divine Right justified the king's absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. The theory came to the fore in England under the reign of King James I (1603–25). King Louis XIV of France (1643–1715) strongly promoted the theory as well. England, meanwhile disappeared rejected the theory during the Glorious Revolution (1688–89), and the American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century further weakened remaining belief in the idea.

History

The European roots of the theory of the Divine Right of Kings may be found in the so-called "Two Swords" theory of church and state promulgated by Pope Gelasius I (late fifth century) who held that both the royal and papal powers were bestowed by God, with the pope's power being the more important:

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power... You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over humankind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation.

During the Renaissance, national powers often struggled with the papacy over various issues, and the Protestant Reformation further exacerbated the need of kings to justify their independence from Rome and assert their authority over religion in their realms.

In English-speaking world, the theory of Divine Right is largely associated with the early Stuart reigns in Britain and the theology clergy who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I, Charles I, and Template:Charles II. The main English tracts supporting the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98 before his accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne as James I. Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a King, was written by James I himself to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, affirming that a good king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable."

The conception of royal ordination by God brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in James' handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment (to honor one's father and mother), so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance." James also had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights.

What distinguished the English idea of Divine Right from the Roman Catholic tradition was that in the latter, the monarch is always subject to the following powers, which are regarded as superior to the monarch:

• The Old Testament, in which the authority of kings could be rightly challenged ad sometimes overthrown by the prophets speaking in the name of God

• The New Testament in which the first pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honor the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor.

• The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Constantine I and Theodosius I, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne.

The English clergy, having rejected the pope and Roman Catholicism, were left only with the supreme power of the King who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the counter-veiling power of the papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the state and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the king, who had become an absolute power. In theory, divine law, natural law, and customary and constitutional law still held sway over the king. However, absent a superior spiritual power, such concepts could not be enforced, since the king could not be tried by any of his own courts, nor did the influence of the pope hold any sway by this point.

Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realize this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor). However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there since the real power of the Monarch was all but extinguished by the Whig revolution of 1688/9 (see Glorious Revolution). The king or queen of the United Kingdom is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration.

The concept of Divine Right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "royal God-given rights", which teach that "the right to rule is anointed by God", although this idea is found in many other cultures including Aryan and Egyptian traditions. In pagan and heathen religions the King was often seen as a kind of god and so was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Catholic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and so achieved, for the very first time, a balanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.

Thomas Aquinas even allowed for the overthrow of a king (and even regicide when the king was a usurper and thus no true king) but he forbade, as did the Church, the overthrow by his subjects of any legitimate king. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. 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? If the subject could so judge his own superior then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgment of an inferior and thus all law was under constant threat. So it has proved since the French Revolution and after, when revolutionaries have claimed the right to overthrow governments. Towards the end of the Middle Ages many philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals, consult his ministers, and made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.

The Scriptural basis of the Divine Right of Kings comes partly from Romans 13:1-2, which states: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

However, this overlooks those parts of Scripture which provide for the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and for the ancient Roman Catholic understanding of the powers, rights and duties of kings to protect the Christian Constitution of states, to defend and extend the boundaries of Christendom by lawful means only, to protect and defend the innocent, the weak, the poor and vulnerable, and to protect the Church and the Papacy with the king's own life, if necessary. The emperor was the first knight of Christendom and the other Christian kings his brother-knights sworn to Christian chivalry with all its manifold obligations to justice and charity.

This concept partly lived on in the Divine Right of Kings but was much undermined and attenuated by the cutting away of the spiritual arm, turning it into a mere department of state, subsidiary to the king.

The result was that this then appeared to say that any attempt by his subjects to hold the king to his historic obligations would be contrary to the will of God and that any person so acting would be damned.

In Roman Catholic jurisprudence, this meant the Pope.

In many modern secular constitutions, an attempt has been made to replace the supreme pontifical and regal powers with a constitution that separates powers into the Executive (i.e. the kingly power), the Judicial (judges can restrain the Executive) and the Legislative, excluding the spiritual power altogether (classically in the USA).

See also

• Church and state in medieval Europe
• Cuius regio, eius religio
• Sovereignty
• Mandate of Heaven
• Robert Bellarmine Roman Catholic arguments denying such divine rights of monarchs
• Robert Filmer

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Burgess, Glenn. "The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered," The English Historical Review. 107, No. 425, (October 1992:837-861), ISSN 0013-8266.

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Divine_Right_of_Kings  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Divine Right of Kings"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.