PDA

View Full Version : The Divine Right of Kings



Abby Normal
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:35 AM
To justify absolute rule, seventeenth-century thinker Jacques-Benigne Bossuet developed the theory of the Divine Right of Kings, which expanded on traditional notions. According to his theory kings are chosen by God to rule absolutely, and are therefore accountable for their actions to no one but God.

Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?

StrÝbog
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 06:52 AM
No, no, and no. I oppose hereditary monarchy, absolutism and unquestioned authority regardless of circumstance. :)

Abby Normal
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:15 AM
No, no, and no. I oppose hereditary monarchy, absolutism and unquestioned authority regardless of circumstance. :)
Even though hereditary monarchy has proved to be the most stable government over the course of history? Of course, the system works better with the proper checks and balances; I personally oppose unchecked absolutism, though I waver about whether leaders are divinely chosen.

TisaAnne
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:44 AM
No, no, and no. I oppose hereditary monarchy, absolutism and unquestioned authority regardless of circumstance. :)
I completely agree with this statement. I tried to give you rep points Stribog...but you've been moderated :(

To be in favor of a system such as that is like being led around blindly...as if you were in a herd of sheep, bleeting and chewing grass, completely oblivious of the corruption around you. We must question all authority, for with seeking answers we are better able to judge if what we are being subjected to is agreeable or not.


Even though hereditary monarchy has proved to be the most stable government over the course of history?
I think the reason it has been so stable is because people don't see any good in opposition...The have the sheep mentality. To overthrow a King isn't like impeaching a president...It's all-out mutinous rebellion. Most people would rather just go along with whatever is instituted, if they do not have any choice in the matter. Why fight against something you cannot change?

StrÝbog
Friday, May 21st, 2004, 07:59 AM
I tried to give you rep points Stribog...but you've been moderated :(

LOL, about that... I've been away for quite a while and I guess the rules became stricter during my absence.

Monarchies have NOT been any more stable, it's just that change comes all at once in a bloody revolution. Witness the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. Monarchs usually do more harm than good by living in ridiculous luxury while the peasants are mired in squalor and abject poverty. The monarchs either are unaware of these conditions or actively support them. By attempting to cling to outdated systems, monarchs often give undeserved credibility to their radical opposition, as was the case with the Tsar and Lenin.

StrÝbog
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 06:51 AM
Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?

Well I don't believe in giving anyone absolute power, as I have said. I do think that there may have been certain mystical forces in history, so to speak, that perhaps favored certain people to become leaders, but not that some deity intervened to place a certain person on the throne. I doubt the existence of a supreme God, though I do believe in the existence of powers beyond what we can see.

symmakhos
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 08:38 AM
Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?
No, but I think the general populace should be made to believe that. :D

Milesian
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:39 AM
Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?

Indeed.
To be honest, I don't see the result being any worse than our current debased western society which is crumbling into dust after centuries of mis-managment by a fundamentally flawed system of so-called "democracy" based on onerous "Enlightenment" values.

At least history has given us some benevolent, progressive rulers whereas democracy seems to be distinguished for giving us consistently bad governments. Also, as Stribog will no doubt be aware - the concept of Divine Right to Rule and Monarchy is wholly in accord with my religious convictions :D

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" ;)

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 09:35 PM
Milesian, you do realize that the traditional Catholic concept of Monarchy was based on the notion of "divine grace" not "divine right"?

Milesian
Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, 10:27 PM
Milesian, you do realize that the traditional Catholic concept of Monarchy was based on the notion of "divine grace" not "divine right"?

Um..yeah...it's all good. Anyway, when I become Pope I'll make one or two changes, granted....:D

NormanBlood
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 07:13 AM
Many Germanic kings and tribal leaders (prior to christianity) claimed to be descended from Odin/Wotan. I personally do believe in hereditary monarchy myself..but as long as the bloodline can sustain this position. As far as I am conserned the king or leader should be able to defend his position through bravery and combat. If he can do so when challenged by another then there are "no problems" as long as he can prove his position, that it is rightfully his. The problem with the later Kings of Europe is that they were fat, lazy fools who had no leadership skills.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, June 13th, 2004, 07:19 AM
Many Germanic kings and tribal leaders (prior to christianity) claimed to be descended from Odin/Wotan. I personally do believe in hereditary monarchy myself..but as long as the bloodline can sustain this position. As far as I am conserned the king or leader should be able to defend his position through bravery and combat. If he can do so when challenged by another then there are "no problems" as long as he can prove his position, that it is rightfully his. The problem with the later Kings of Europe is that they were fat, lazy fools who had no leadership skills.
That's why the civil wars and revolutions happened. The dissidents were shoved off into the colonies though.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 04:40 AM
Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?

Leaders are obviously self-made and reliant on the favor of the people. There is no God except for Power to the Focused Leader. Whether or not some Leaders Achieve absolute Power is determined by their own ablity.


Many Germanic kings and tribal leaders (prior to christianity) claimed to be descended from Odin/Wotan. I personally do believe in hereditary monarchy myself..but as long as the bloodline can sustain this position. As far as I am conserned the king or leader should be able to defend his position through bravery and combat. If he can do so when challenged by another then there are "no problems" as long as he can prove his position, that it is rightfully his. The problem with the later Kings of Europe is that they were fat, lazy fools who had no leadership skills.

I too believe in Hereditary monarchy. Whether or not a bloodline can sustain that position and for how long is a question of the quality of their breeding. A King usually defends his position by forming alliances and letting others do the fighting for him. An excellent opportunity to test the Loyality of your followers. Later Kings where replaced by Tyrants. Not all of them lacking in Leadership Skills.

Jack
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 10:24 AM
LOL, about that... I've been away for quite a while and I guess the rules became stricter during my absence.

Monarchies have NOT been any more stable, it's just that change comes all at once in a bloody revolution. Witness the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution. Monarchs usually do more harm than good by living in ridiculous luxury while the peasants are mired in squalor and abject poverty. The monarchs either are unaware of these conditions or actively support them. By attempting to cling to outdated systems, monarchs often give undeserved credibility to their radical opposition, as was the case with the Tsar and Lenin.

Josef Stalin didn't claim divine right, and whether or not he wielded absolute power, his legitimacy depended on him being 'vox populi', not 'representative of God' - and so he wielded the one 'benefit' democracy has - total mobilization in times of war. Lichtenstein has a monarchy and it also happens to have a rather impressive economy for such a small country, as opposed to democratic-socialist Sweden. Monarchs are less likely to trigger annihilation wars (e.g. Dresden) because the land they rule over is theirs, and people generally look after their own property. Monarchs do not have to screw around persuading the population to support them once every four years, pandering to the spontaneous desires of the masses to retain their legitimacy.

Telperion
Sunday, June 20th, 2004, 06:31 PM
Do you believe that some people are divinely chosen as leaders (whether by the Christian God or otherwise), and should thus be given absolute power?
It should be transparently obvious that any claim by a ruler to a divine imprimatur is simply a form of propaganda designed to keep the populace in line. 'Divine right' is really just a more modern variant of the ancient belief that rulers actually were Gods or semi-devine in themselves (e.g. the Egyptian Pharohs).

Of course, if I were the absolute ruler myself, I'm sure I'd take a different view of the matter...

Amerikanerin
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 07:40 PM
No. While the Bible does say that we should submit to governments, it also defines the proper function of government - to punish those who do evil and "hold no terror for those who do right". When these functions are reversed (in case of a dictatorship) the government loses its right to people's obedience and should be opposed.

■eudiskaz
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 08:14 PM
Many Germanic kings and tribal leaders (prior to christianity) claimed to be descended from Odin/Wotan. I personally do believe in hereditary monarchy myself..but as long as the bloodline can sustain this position. As far as I am conserned the king or leader should be able to defend his position through bravery and combat. If he can do so when challenged by another then there are "no problems" as long as he can prove his position, that it is rightfully his. The problem with the later Kings of Europe is that they were fat, lazy fools who had no leadership skills.

Pre-Christian Germanic tribes used (if I am correct) heredity in many cases. Above heredity, however, was worthiness for the job. Pre-Christians Germanic leaders were vert accountable to the people that they led. This is the way it was, and the way it should be. A leader is in a great position, but that position imparts a necessary trust that, if broken, should result in his corpse hanging from the nearest tree. If he merely turns out unfit, a champion defeating him in combat (as you mentioned) or a simple exile should do the trick.

As to the claim of descendence from Wotan... Such a claim is exactly that, a claim. Of course we want to look upon our leaders as divine champions (of whatever faith we practice) but I believe that in almost any case, Earthly governance is left to free-will and self-determination more than divine mettling.

■eudiskaz
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010, 08:20 PM
No. While the Bible does say that we should submit to governments, it also defines the proper function of government - to punish those who do evil and "hold no terror for those who do right". When these functions are reversed (in case of a dictatorship) the government loses its right to people's obedience and should be opposed.

Even though the NT also preaches that slaves be submissive to their owners if they can do so in good conscience? Even though Jesus advocated the payment of taxes to Augustus, a dictator? Not only did Jesus "pay taxes" He made a very deliberate, and direct statement that so long as we morally can, we should follow earthly governance. A dictator does not forfeit his rule on that basis a lone. It is a poor ruler that forfeits his rule, and on that basis. Also, you will note that even under direct persecution from the Romans, the Christians did not attempt to topple the government, a marked change from Zealot Jews. I'd say you have your Biblical context wrong.

Though I do agree in general that dictators should be infrequent at best. Small tribes of Volk should have relative security in self-governance while following a strong, capable (yet accountable) chieftan. Being a leader is a priviledge, but a sacred responsibility that ties you to the happiness, and welfare of the people you lead, in this way do I find dictatorships unsatisfactory, very similar to how I find modern large governments dissatisfactory. My country has 300 million people, so my votes in the end mean almost nothing.

NorthernDawn
Saturday, July 31st, 2010, 04:41 PM
The Divine Right Of Kings is derived from the ancient Occultic knowledge in the Mystery Schools that man was a physical creation of the gods, and that certain men still carry the divine blood (spark) of the gods, and therefore are the only one worthy to act as a representative of god on earth in the dispersal of wisdom and knowledge on earth. It was bastardized and reshaped into a tool of power and coersion by humans....to acheive godlike status without having any godlike attributes.....thus the monarchical system we are most familiar with in history and it's legendary abuses in the name of divinity and providence.

BritishLad
Saturday, July 31st, 2010, 04:48 PM
Considering I'm a loyalist then yes

Chlodovech
Saturday, July 31st, 2010, 06:14 PM
In principle, I would be legitimist - which is more in line with the original Frankish view of kingship - if a king wasn't well liked, then his people would've rebelled against him and gotten rid of him.

The concept of the divine right of kings is perhaps better for creating a stable society, though.

If a blood line is chosen by God, through the Church & a ritualistic ceremony, or some supernatural event like the skies breaking open and revealing Constantine's cross to a person, I'm very much willing to accept that man as a king.

Since 'the divine right of kings' is also a Catholic story, I'd like to point out what the German mystic Sr Anne Catherine Emmerich had to say about it in the 19th century. She was a simple, devout nun who had visions of Christ's life - her account was investigated by the Church's theologans and they stated that her information doesn't contradict the gospels. Her visions are recognized as authentic (although no Catholic is required to believe in her visions) - Sr Emmerich "expands" on the gospels, and describes their events in great detail. One such event pertains to the divine right of kings.

"Jesus gave His Apostles private instructions; (...) He spoke concerning the priesthood, the sacred unction, preparation of the Chrism and Holy Oils. He had 3 boxes, 2 of which contain a mixt of oil and balm. He taught them how to make this mixture, what parts of body to be anointed with them, upon what occasions. I remember, among other things, He mentioned a case in which the Holy Eucharist could not be administered; perhaps what He said had reference to Extreme Unction, for my recollections on this point are not very clear. He spoke of different kinds of anointing, in particular of that of kings, He said even wicked kings who were anointed, derived from it special powers. He put ointment and oil in the empty box, mixed them together, but I can't say for certain if it was at this moment, or at time of consecration of the bread, that He blessed the oil. I saw Jesus anoint Peter and John, on whose hands he poured the water which flowed on his own, and 2 whom He gave to drink out of the chalice. He laid his hands on their shoulders and heads, while they, on their part, joined their hands, crossed their thumbs, bow down profoundly before Him--I am not sure if they did not even kneel. He anointed thumb and fore-finger of each of their hands, marked a cross on their heads with Chrism. He said this would remain with them unto the end of the world. (...) All that Jesus did upon this occasion was done in private, taught equally in private. The Church has retained all that is essential of these secret instructions, under inspiration of the Holy Ghost, developed and adapted them to all her requirements."

So where is that box now, huh? :)

Interestingly enough, early Frankish, and later French medieval monarchs, claimed to possess a cup with holy oil, a cup that magically refilled itself, and which was used during coronation ceremonies.

Dropkick
Saturday, July 31st, 2010, 06:17 PM
Todays Kings belong in museums.


The real Kings are those who have the most money. The trillionaire Rockefellar family tell Obama what to do.

heksemester
Saturday, July 31st, 2010, 06:23 PM
I believe in the divine right to rule, but I acknowledge its misuse to underline a sovereign kingdoms power to oppress the feeble fools below.

Pure blood equals pure leadership, and I surely believe in my own destiny to lead my family and my kind into a brighter future.

NorthernDawn
Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010, 03:11 AM
The power of divine rule must inherently be tempered with divine intentions towards the ruled......the simple will to power over a people is nothing short of anti-divine, and belays the all too "human" traits of greed and subjugation

wittwer
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 02:34 PM
Basing the Political and Socio-Economic Order on the bizarre concept of "Divine Right" makes about as much sense as basing it upon the concept of the "Demos" and Mobocracy. Such is the reason Republicanism and Man evolved out the Dark Ages. Regicide is the act of a patriot and free man.

Ardito
Thursday, November 25th, 2010, 03:07 AM
I believe in monarchy as the manifestation of God's will on earth. I think that to say that the King is literally chosen is a misunderstanding; the King is the representative of God merely by being the King.

Without the manifestation of God's authority in the form of the King and of the natural social hierarchy, Man's worship will always be misdirected. Loyalty to the King is symbolic, and, in a sense, even direct, loyalty to God.

Rodskarl Dubhgall
Sunday, May 27th, 2018, 05:29 AM
It seems that today's bureaucrats operate with more arbitrary prerogative against vox populi than constitutional monarchs.