≈{{}}[[]][[]]±²×À''Italic text'':''This article is about the doctrine; [[The Divine Right of Kings (poem)|The Divine Right of Kings]] is also the title of a short [[poem]] by [[Edgar Allan Poe]].''

----

The '''Divine Right of Kings''' is a [[Europe]]an [[politics|political]] and [[religion|religious]] doctrine of [[political absolutism]]. Such doctrines are largely, though not exclusivelydagdafgjk kdaf kdajf;ldaf''Italic text'''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''', associated with the [[mediæval]] and ''[[ancien régime]]'' eras, based on contemporary [[Christianity|Christian]] belief that a [[monarch]] owed his rule to the will of [[God]], not to the will of his subjects, [[parliament]], the [[aristocrat|aristocracy]] or any other dafcompeting authority. This doctrine continued with the claim that any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers ran contrary to the will of God.

Its symbolism remains in the ass of the British monarch|coronation]]s of the British monarchs, in which they are [[anointed]] with [[Holy oil]]s by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], thereby [[Holy Orderfsdfasdfs|''ordaining'']] them to monarchy. It is further evidenced by efforts to trace the genealogy of European monarchs to King David of the Old Testament, in the apparent belief that it legitimizes the rule of the present monarch (c.f. http://www.kingdavid.org/genealogy.html). The king or queen of the [[United Kingdom]] is the last monarch still to undergo such a ceremony, which in other countries has been replaced by an [[inauguration]] or other [[declaration]]. It is the reason why the [[British Royal Family]]'s [[motto]] is ''Dieu Et Mon Droit'' (God and my Right - i.e. I rule with God's blessing).

this is stupid

==The concept==

The concept of Divine Right of Kings is only one manifestation of a much broader concept of "royal God-given rights", which simply says that "the right to rule is anointed by god(s)" which is found in other cultur'''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text''''''Bold text'''es. Unlike the Chinese concept of the [[Mandate of Heaven]] which legitimized the overthrow of an oppressive or incompetent monarch, a European king could not lose the Divine Right by misrule, at least according to most authors. [[Thomas Aquinas]] accepted afhjkasdhfkasd fjkasdhfuid what is the point of the divine right of kingsthe overthrow of a king and even [[r daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'''Bold text''''''Bold text'''aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa''Italic text''aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa'''Bold text'''aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaegicide]] when the laws of the king are untenably unjust, however, and towards the end of the Middle Ages many philosophers such as [[Nicholas of Cusa]] and [[Francisco Suarez]] propounded similar theories. In addition, the concept of [[Mandate of Heaven]] required that the emperor properly carry out the proper [[ritual]]s, consult his ministers, and made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.

Japanese imperial theory based the legitimacy of the [[Emperor of Japan]] on his descent from [[Amaterasu]], however unlike the European case, this divinity did not usually translate into political power.

In the western world it came to be associated with [[Catholic|Roman Catholicism]] and other Christian faiths in the [[Reformation]] period. The notion of divine right of kings was certainly in existence in the [[Middle Ages|medieval period]]. However it was in the early modern era, under the ''[[ancien régime]]'', that the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism, i.e. for increasing the power of kings within centralized monarchies relative to their nobles and subjects. It was given its most comprehensive formulations by the [[France|French]] [[bishop]] [[Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet|Bossuet]] and King [[James I of England]], but it owes much to the earlier writings of [[Augustine of Hippo]] and [[Paul of Tarsus]].

In the ''[[Epistle to the Romans]]'', chapter 13, Paul wrote that earthly rulers, even though they may not be Christians, have been appointed by God to their places of power for the purpose of punishing evildoers. Some Biblical scholars believe that Paul was writing, in part, to reassure the Roman authorities who ruled his world that the Christian movement was not [[subversion (political)|subversive]]. The difficulty posed for later [[Christianity|Christians]] is that the [[New Testament]] contained no explicit plan for the government of a mostly Christian society. It assumed that Christians would always be a minority in a pagan world, and its political counsel was limited mostly to advising members to obey the law and stay out of the way of pagan government.

[[Augustine of Hippo]] modified these emphases in his work ''[[The City of God|De Civitate Dei]]'' for the purpose of a newly converted [[Roman Empire]] that was in serious political and military turmoil. While the City of Man and the City of God may stand at cross-purposes, both of them have been instituted by [[God]] and served His ultimate will. Even though the City of Man – the world of secular government – may seem ungodly and be governed by sinners, even so, it has been placed on Earth for the protection of the City of God. Therefore, [[monarch]]s have been placed on their [[throne]]s for God's purpose, and to question their authority is to question God.

During the early reign of [[Louis XIV of France]], [[Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet]] took this argument to its furthest conclusion. Reviewing [[Old Testament]] precedents concerning the selection of kings, Bossuet concluded that kings were God's anointed representatives on earth. Each of them has been given his throne by God Himself, and to rebel against their authority is to rebel against God. No parliament, nobleman, nor the common people had a right to participate in that God-given authority, since it was conferred by [[divine providence]] through the right of [[primogeniture]].

In fact, Bossuet wrote, not to justify the authority of an already autocratic monarchy, but to shore it up against further incidents of turmoil that had shaken the French throne, such as the series of [[Fronde]]s, in which French noblemen had fought petty [[civil war]]s against the authority of [[Louis XIII of France|Louis XIII]], and against Louis XIV himself. Bossuet's teaching ultimately proved to be the cause of much turmoil and bloodshed in France; the notion of divine right was finally overthrown in the [[French Revolution]].

==James I of England==

These arguments are exemplified and taken further still in the following passages from Chapter 20 of [[James I of England|James I]]'s ''Works'':

:"The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God; and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truly ''[[List of Latin phrases|Parens patriæ]]'', the politique father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this [[microcosm]] of the body of man.

:"Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only.

:"I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws."

James's subjects were not willing to submit to these assertions. A contrary doctrine arose, formulated by judges such as Sir [[Edward Coke]], that the King of England was the creation of the law of England, and subject to that law. This doctrine found adherents in Parliament, spurred on by anti-monarchical precedents such as the nobles' revolt that led to [[Magna Carta]] in 1215.

This conflict ultimately came to a head in the [[English Civil War]], which was won by the forces representing Parliament and led to the execution of [[Charles I of England|Charles I]] in January [[1649]]. The Parliamentary victory, despite the [[English Restoration|Restoration]] of [[1660]], was followed up by the [[Glorious Revolution]] of [[1688]], drove from power advocates of the divine right of kings in England, and firmly established in power advocates of the principle of [[constitutional monarchy]] where the ultimate authority was Parliament, not the monarch.

==See also==

*[[Separation of church and state (medieval)]]

[[Category:Christian law]]

[[Category:Monarchy]]

[[Category:Religion in the United Kingdom]]

[[Category:Rights]]

[[fr:Droit divin]]

[[it:Diritto divino dei re]]

[[ja:王権神授説]]

[[pt:Direito divino dos reis]]

[[sv:Kungadömet av Guds nåde]]

[[zh:君權神授說]]