Check out the relevant Wikipedia page, for starters. The Divine Right of Kings as a notion went back to medieval times, when rulers would only rule with the blessing of the Pope, though the theory so named was not spelled out until later.
Note that the Divine Right of Kings was refuted in 1689 by John Locke, and I’ve heard it said that he was kicking a dead horse.
Check out the relevant Wikipedia page, for starters. The Divine Right of Kings as a notion went back to medieval times, when rulers would only rule with the blessing of the Pope, though the theory so named was not spelled out until later.
I’m not very impressed with the Wikipedia article on the subject. It seems to conflate several different theories of civil authority that were historically used in opposition to each other. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Divine Right of Kings asserts that:
...in a State once monarchical, monarchy is forever the only lawful government, and all authority is vested in the monarch, to be communicated by him, to such as he may select for the time being to share his power. This “divine right of kings” (very different from the doctrine that all authority, whether of king or of republic, is from God), has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church.
If I’m not mistaken, The Mandate from Heaven and medieval divine right theories were generally thought to limit a kings power (by making it subject to revocation by religious authority), whereas The Divine Right of Kings (the Post-Reformation concept; note the capitalization) seeks to expand monarchical power. In any case, it would be wise not to update very strongly on my vague impressions from my university days (which are somewhat hazy and long before I started using spaced repetition software).
This was my understanding as well; the Divine Right of Kings is a ‘recent’ thing and was for European kingdoms specifically.
The oldest example I can think of that is sort-of-related is the Mandate of Heaven, and it seems to me like various forms of divine ancestry were the most common things to rely on to assert monarchic authority.
The Mandate of Heaven was double-edged though, unlike the divine right of kings.. The peasantry was considered a force of nature, and a rebellion was thus a sign that heaven revoked the ruler’s mandate.
The on-topic point I attempted to make was that both were appropriate arguments of the form that would definitely pass an ideological turing test for “people who are rationalizing that their monarchy is the best thing ever”.
IIRC, the Mandate of Heaven did help quite a bit in getting imperial rulers to not be total assholes, though.
Really? It was my understanding that the Divine Right of Kings was a recent (17th century) invention. Care to share you evidence?
Check out the relevant Wikipedia page, for starters. The Divine Right of Kings as a notion went back to medieval times, when rulers would only rule with the blessing of the Pope, though the theory so named was not spelled out until later.
Note that the Divine Right of Kings was refuted in 1689 by John Locke, and I’ve heard it said that he was kicking a dead horse.
I’m not very impressed with the Wikipedia article on the subject. It seems to conflate several different theories of civil authority that were historically used in opposition to each other. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, The Divine Right of Kings asserts that:
If I’m not mistaken, The Mandate from Heaven and medieval divine right theories were generally thought to limit a kings power (by making it subject to revocation by religious authority), whereas The Divine Right of Kings (the Post-Reformation concept; note the capitalization) seeks to expand monarchical power. In any case, it would be wise not to update very strongly on my vague impressions from my university days (which are somewhat hazy and long before I started using spaced repetition software).
Well, Egyptian Pharaohs ruled by divine right, if nothing else. I was referring to the general idea that the monarch rules by divine permission.
However, as noted below, the theology and so on became more explicit around that time, according to Wikipedia.
This was my understanding as well; the Divine Right of Kings is a ‘recent’ thing and was for European kingdoms specifically.
The oldest example I can think of that is sort-of-related is the Mandate of Heaven, and it seems to me like various forms of divine ancestry were the most common things to rely on to assert monarchic authority.
The Mandate of Heaven was double-edged though, unlike the divine right of kings.. The peasantry was considered a force of nature, and a rebellion was thus a sign that heaven revoked the ruler’s mandate.
The on-topic point I attempted to make was that both were appropriate arguments of the form that would definitely pass an ideological turing test for “people who are rationalizing that their monarchy is the best thing ever”.
IIRC, the Mandate of Heaven did help quite a bit in getting imperial rulers to not be total assholes, though.