The United states threw off the yoke of a king much more than two centuries ago. Funny exactly how we can’t get sufficient of our erstwhile sovereignty today.

You are watching: James i of england believed in the divine right of kings, which is


*

Despite a king-hating revolution nearly 250 years ago, U.S. Television audiences never ever seem to get enough of the brother monarchy. Possibly the American obsession v shows choose The Crown and, prior to that, The Stuarts is one unlikely rewish of the once-potent theory of the magnificent right of kings. It’s as great an explanation as any, yet what is divine-right theory, anyway?

Divine right is the notion that nobility is given magnificent sanction come rule. In the indigenous of England’s King James ns (r. 1603–1625): “The State of monarch is the supremest thing upon earth: For queens are not just GOD’S Lieutenants ~ above earth, and sit ~ above GOD’S throne, yet even by GOD himself they are called GODS.”


Divine-righters posited divinity as lengthy as the king’s reach remained within details bounds.

What this actually expected in helpful terms is described by scholar glen Burgess, who notes the divine-right theory arised out that Europe’s medieval period and to be supercharged through the protestant Reformation. Prior to that break, only the pope can be thought about God’s sublievenant on Earth. Following the Reformation, monarchs like James ns made a claim on this title as well.

James’s declaration wasn’t welcomed by everyone, of course. But, as burgess notes, the concept was skillfully fitted right into the legacies of the English constitution. The theory of magnificent right in the sixteenth and also seventeenth centuries “believed the the queens of England to be answerable just to God.” however at the same time, this scholars rejected royal absolutism, the concept that the person vested v supreme strength was above and past the law. “They also believed that the majesties of England <…> were retained within legit bounds through the nature of the English constitution”—it’s unwritten.

Divine-righters do divinity as long as the king’s with stayed within details bounds.

Burgess notes that those that wrote about divine appropriate left the “practical implications” of your words “unclear” and also ambiguous, “perhaps on purpose so,” given that the constitution isn’t a unified, single, written paper like the of the united States.

As character by Burgess, early modern divine-righters said that “It was wicked to stand up to an English monarch; fortunately, it was likewise unnecessary. The English structure ensured that its majesties ruled well.” Why? The reasoning seems a little mystical: The English imbued your constitution with tremendous powers, including an excellent defense of old liberties, which no way king would certainly think the side-stepping.

“The ideological suggest of divine-right theory,” write Burgess, “was come condemn disobedience, or more particularly, rebellion, not to remove the king native all must observe his own laws.”


Weekly Newsletter

The most important duty of magnificent right to be its usage in quashing opposition. Resistance come James I and his child Charles i (r. 1625–1649) come from quarters as disparate together the Catholic, Calvinist/Presbyterian, and Puritan churches, i m sorry all tested the royals’ preferably in spiritual matters and also state matters. Divine right trumped castle all. Till it didn’t.

The battles over magnificent right would concerned a head in the mid-seventeenth century—literally. Found guilty by a parliamentary court of one “unlimited and tyrannical strength to rule according to his will, and also to fall the rights and also liberties the the people,” Charles ns was beheaded.

See more: Which Statement Most Accurately Describes This Excerpt? ? Abel After A Strenuous Climb

The brothers monarchy was revitalized in 1660 after ~ a period known as the Interregnum. Willed by GOD or not.