The divine right of kings, divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is ...

Define divine right: the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch… — divine right in a sentence

Divine right of kings: Divine right of kings, political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and ...

The divine right of kings, divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is ...

Define divine right: the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch… — divine right in a sentence

Divine right of kings: Divine right of kings, political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and ...

The divine right of kings , divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy . It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God . The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy , or any other estate of the realm . It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase " by the Grace of God ", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

In the pagan world, [ clarification needed ] kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel , where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed".

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: " I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions ", and it was Richard who first used the motto " Dieu et mon droit " ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom .

Human beings are plagued with a desire to be put on one side of a thing. It could be war or an ideology — the Union or the Confederacy, the Sunnis or the Shiites — or it could be something more peaceful and healthy — the Eagles or the Giants, the Americans or the Russians in the space race . People seem to have a tendency to want to fall into one category or the other, and we can see this happening everyday; to describe it, we don’t dress it up and seemed to have embraced the nature of our “sides.” Of course, I’m talking about the right and the left.

Ascribe whatever words you may — Republican versus Democrat, red states versus blue states, conservatives versus liberals — semantics aside, it’s all roughly describing the same thing. In our world, this is big news . This is a conflict that is groping at the foundations of our nation, threatening serious instability that some even think is inevitable, and others seem to look forward to .

And yet, our current ideological conflict is quite small when measured up with the other ideological conflicts throughout history. If you are to flip through the pages of just about any century of British literature, you’ll find one very common conflict: the divine right of kings.

In the ancient world, the "divine rights of kings" was not spoken of as such. It was the "divinity of kings". Even in pre-Christian Rome, if you were a citizen of Rome, you were to worship the Emperor. In fact, that was the initial problem between the Empire and Christians.

Anyway, I've often remarked that in the 1500's, guys like Martin Luther, Tyndale, and Henry Tudor's nether-regions conveniently discovered a right to rebel from the Church. In a fit of poetic justice, a few hundred years later, unreformed, low-church dissident smugglers in America conveniently discovered a right to rebel from kings. So now we find ourselves in what Hillaire Belloc called the modern attack. That is, having bucked most legitimate authority, we are now witnessing the rebellion against virtue itself.

The difference between this view and the later view was the key role given to the church and the subordination of the monarch to the church and the traditional view of God's law and natural law, including the law governing society. The later, 17th century view of the divine right of Kings largely dispensed with the various limiting and defining institutions and beliefs that surrounded medieval Kingship, leaving only a supremely powerful autocrat with absolute power over church and state. It is important not to mistake this latter though for the medieval idea or misconstrue that for some sort of neutrality on the idea of Kingship versus other forms of government.

“…the figure of God’s majesty,
His captain, steward, deputy-elect,
Anointed, crowned,…”
– Richard II

The Divine Right of Kings can be dated back to the medieval period, where it highlighted the superiority and legitimacy of a monarch. At its core, the concept of the Divine Right has religious and political origins, therefore furthering its legitimacy. As a whole, this concept states that only God can judge a monarch, because only he has the authority. It believes that a form of monarchical government is the most appropriate, and allegiance should only be sworn to the legitimate heir to the crown.

The driving force behind the success of the Divine Right of Kings was the idea of punishment to enforce obedience. In reality this established fear among a sovereign’s subjects, and in some ways made the monarchs of this period rather tyrannical. To assert the obedience of their subjects they would hold public executions, which most certainly generated fear. Monarchs also used tools such as propaganda to ensure the loyalty of their subjects. The idea of sedition taught subjects that divine retribution would occur if they acted out against their ruler.

The divine right of kings, divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is ...

Define divine right: the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch… — divine right in a sentence

Divine right of kings: Divine right of kings, political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and ...

The divine right of kings , divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy . It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God . The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy , or any other estate of the realm . It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase " by the Grace of God ", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

In the pagan world, [ clarification needed ] kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel , where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed".

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: " I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions ", and it was Richard who first used the motto " Dieu et mon droit " ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom .

Human beings are plagued with a desire to be put on one side of a thing. It could be war or an ideology — the Union or the Confederacy, the Sunnis or the Shiites — or it could be something more peaceful and healthy — the Eagles or the Giants, the Americans or the Russians in the space race . People seem to have a tendency to want to fall into one category or the other, and we can see this happening everyday; to describe it, we don’t dress it up and seemed to have embraced the nature of our “sides.” Of course, I’m talking about the right and the left.

Ascribe whatever words you may — Republican versus Democrat, red states versus blue states, conservatives versus liberals — semantics aside, it’s all roughly describing the same thing. In our world, this is big news . This is a conflict that is groping at the foundations of our nation, threatening serious instability that some even think is inevitable, and others seem to look forward to .

And yet, our current ideological conflict is quite small when measured up with the other ideological conflicts throughout history. If you are to flip through the pages of just about any century of British literature, you’ll find one very common conflict: the divine right of kings.

The divine right of kings, divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is ...

Define divine right: the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch… — divine right in a sentence

Divine right of kings: Divine right of kings, political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and ...

The divine right of kings , divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy . It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God . The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy , or any other estate of the realm . It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase " by the Grace of God ", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

In the pagan world, [ clarification needed ] kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel , where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed".

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: " I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions ", and it was Richard who first used the motto " Dieu et mon droit " ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom .

Human beings are plagued with a desire to be put on one side of a thing. It could be war or an ideology — the Union or the Confederacy, the Sunnis or the Shiites — or it could be something more peaceful and healthy — the Eagles or the Giants, the Americans or the Russians in the space race . People seem to have a tendency to want to fall into one category or the other, and we can see this happening everyday; to describe it, we don’t dress it up and seemed to have embraced the nature of our “sides.” Of course, I’m talking about the right and the left.

Ascribe whatever words you may — Republican versus Democrat, red states versus blue states, conservatives versus liberals — semantics aside, it’s all roughly describing the same thing. In our world, this is big news . This is a conflict that is groping at the foundations of our nation, threatening serious instability that some even think is inevitable, and others seem to look forward to .

And yet, our current ideological conflict is quite small when measured up with the other ideological conflicts throughout history. If you are to flip through the pages of just about any century of British literature, you’ll find one very common conflict: the divine right of kings.

In the ancient world, the "divine rights of kings" was not spoken of as such. It was the "divinity of kings". Even in pre-Christian Rome, if you were a citizen of Rome, you were to worship the Emperor. In fact, that was the initial problem between the Empire and Christians.

Anyway, I've often remarked that in the 1500's, guys like Martin Luther, Tyndale, and Henry Tudor's nether-regions conveniently discovered a right to rebel from the Church. In a fit of poetic justice, a few hundred years later, unreformed, low-church dissident smugglers in America conveniently discovered a right to rebel from kings. So now we find ourselves in what Hillaire Belloc called the modern attack. That is, having bucked most legitimate authority, we are now witnessing the rebellion against virtue itself.

The difference between this view and the later view was the key role given to the church and the subordination of the monarch to the church and the traditional view of God's law and natural law, including the law governing society. The later, 17th century view of the divine right of Kings largely dispensed with the various limiting and defining institutions and beliefs that surrounded medieval Kingship, leaving only a supremely powerful autocrat with absolute power over church and state. It is important not to mistake this latter though for the medieval idea or misconstrue that for some sort of neutrality on the idea of Kingship versus other forms of government.

The divine right of kings, divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is ...

Define divine right: the right of a sovereign to rule as set forth by the theory of government that holds that a monarch… — divine right in a sentence

Divine right of kings: Divine right of kings, political doctrine in defense of monarchical absolutism, which asserted that kings derived their authority from God and ...

The divine right of kings , divine right , or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy . It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God . The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy , or any other estate of the realm . It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase " by the Grace of God ", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

In the pagan world, [ clarification needed ] kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel , where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed".

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: " I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions ", and it was Richard who first used the motto " Dieu et mon droit " ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom .

Divine right of kings | political doctrine | Britannica.com


Divine Right | Definition of Divine Right by Merriam-Webster

Posted by 2018 article

51Vt0tNeKgL