A modern essayist has said with truth, that “never has there been a doctrine better written against than the Divine Right of Kings."[1]
INTRODUCTION
The divine right of monarchs is a religious and political doctrine of dignified absolute Rule. It propounds that a monarch's rule is bounded by no earthly authority and that he derives his right to rule directly from the will of God. Therefore, the king is not subjected to people’s will, fortune, including the church, or even the aristocracy. The doctrine indicates that any force trying to restrict the power of the king is contrary to God’s will and may constitute the crime of treason.[2]
The alternative name for ‘divine rights of monarchs’ is ‘the divine origin theory’. Of the origin of the state, this is considered as the primordial theory. The theory discusses and elucidates how the state arose into being. Devotees of this theory argued that it is not the people because of whom the state developed, but it is God’s handiwork because of which state came into existence and kings were appointed as God’s agents or the representatives. The divine power was awarded to the king and he was set responsible for his works to God alone and not respond to people for his works. The King, through God, was bestowed with the Supreme power to rule over people. The divine origin theory epitomizes the king as “above the Law” and nothing could interrogate his actions or his authority. [3]
It triumphed in the period when religion took over the minds of people. People alleged that kings are the representatives of God and therefore one must stay following his orders and it shall be a sinful act to disobey them or to go against his orders. Contrary to that era, in the 20th-century people remark this theory as an ‘incorrect’ and false representation of the meaning of ‘origin of state’.
The theory declined due to numerous causes. The first reason was people started accepting the theory of ‘social contract’ and outdated the theory of divine rights as the social contract theory indicated that state is handiwork and creation of man and not the handiwork of God almighty. Parting of state and the church was concluded as the second reason for it. Therefore, the total unacceptability of the divine theory was because of a materialistic outlook. Lastly, the reason stated was that democracy was introduced and individuals were glorified because of it and not because of God’s agent.[4]
By that time, people starting sensing things in a better way. They accepted only those things that seemed reasonable and logical.
HYPOTHESIS
The theory of the divine origin of the state in Monarchy does not prove to be correct as it does not hold any scientific reason attached to it.
LITERATURE REVIEW
For making an unbiased and properly analyzed research paper, wisely choosing literature for it is very essential as the type of literature chosen affects the material written in a particular research paper. A book named “Divine right of kings” by John Figgis who was a political philosopher and a historian states summarizes kingship as the divine authority that influenced many people for a long period. Towards the close of middle age, English kingship was unconditioned and hereditary by constitutional restraints. He also stated that under the divine theory, the king is an agent of God. He is above everyone else, even above the law. The king is answerable to God alone and no one else. Zahir Bin Ahmad, another writer talks about king and kingship in an article entitled “Divine right of the king: a comparative study”. He talks about what is throne and how is it the most respectable and valued element for a king. He describes 5 different types of Monarchy. He also stated that “An amalgamation of ‘Spiritual influence’ and ‘secular power’ obliges a monarch as the divine authority”. “The theory of divine origin or state” by Bodhendra Kumar talks about the reasons that led to the decline of this theory. He stated reasons like coming up with social contract theory, growth of scientific inquiry, emergency for democracy, and reforms for separation of church from the state. Frank Zane in his work talks about the theory of special contract how tells how because of it the theory of divine origin started declining. As the special contract theory gives credit to men for establishing a state, people found it to be as sensible and started questioning the divine theory. Deepika Gahatraj in her journal talks about the origin of the state. She very briefly describes the meaning of this theory and then gives the reasons behind its criticism and its decline. “Kingship and law in the Middle Ages” a book written by Fritz Kern talks about the 11th and 13th centuries and how people used to stay dominated by the king and his orders.
HISTORY OF DIVINE THEORY
Remote antiquity can be traced back to the conception of the divine theory. It was a universally accepted fact that people in the ancient era, believed the king to be God’s representative on earth and state to be his bliss. Therefore, both the economical and religious rights were bestowed by the king alone. Indication of the king to be God’s representative is mentioned in the holy books as well. In conception is explicit in some religions and implicit in many others.
Testament of the holy book of the Bible was the first to garner the theory of divine origin. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers that be, are ordained by God. Whosoever resist the power, resisted the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Is the saying of St. Paul.[5]
Sir Robert Filmer in 1680 wrote a book entitled “The Law of the Free Monarchies” that refers to Adam as the first king on earth and the rest of the kings as subordinate to Adam and are his descendants. Manu smriti states that during anarchy when the condition of the entire world was thick, people beseech God for a remedy to this condition. As a remedy, God fervently bequeathed Manu with the power to rule over. [6]
The origination or the emergency of divine theory prevailed in olden times wherein politics and religion were united in an individual king. People in an ancient era were ruled based on the injunction of Dharma for both politics and religion. “Laws fay deep in the profusion of the Sastras”[7]
During the Medieval period, the Pope of Christians was given semi-God status. Caliph was the priest-king in the Muslim world. The head of the theocratic state of Tibet was Dalai Lama. People awarded him with the repo of God Avalokitesvara, the incarnation of Buddhist God. In the Medieval period, both state and the church followed divine theory in their mutual rivalry. The Church propounded itself to be superior to the state. Contrary to this, the State due to its glorious nature asserted itself to be superior to Church.
It has been claimed by Sir Stuart king James I that he asserted his authority from God directly. In the beliefs of Stuart James, Intelligent and wise is the king, and wicked are all his subjects.
In separate cultures, a king is considered as the divided authority who is embedded with special powers and has the right over his state. Thrown of a king is the most respectable one. All the social, political, economical, and also the law of the land is under the king’s ascendancy. An amalgamation of ‘Spiritual influence’ and ‘secular power’ obliges a monarch as the divine authority. Factually, A king is a male ruler who has any authority over the sovereign state and inherits the right to rule since birth like King Henry 8(4). The ancient Greeks prior antecedent to the Medieval period assessed the king as the pure and glorious authority over citizens. People in that era believed monarchy to be the purest form of governing and considered it as a form of the political system which is epitomized by an admissible monarch with the right to rule over his jurisdiction[8]. Society in the political philosophy of ancient Greece believed that there is the existence of 5 different types of Monarchy.
1. Spartan
2. Barbarian
3. Elective Dictatorship
4. Heroic Monarchy
5. Absolute Kingship
The last three types of Monarchy were considered the best types of policies according to Aristotle. The reason being that the king acts as the incarnation of law. In relevance to Greek relic that Monarchy emanates to meet desideratum of the primitive society. A monarch is superintended as a pillar or bulwark to his kingdom. Unless the needs of the general public at large are well pleased by the Monarch, the public is equipped to preserve Monarchy and this is corroborated by mankind’s history. Kings because of it ruled for continuous dynasties. Jean de Blanot (1255 CE) quoted “The king is the emperor of his realm”. It is quoted by William Durandas as well nearly 40 years later and also in 1968 by John of Paris. [9]
In many cultures, the ruler’s divine essence was extensively disseminated. In most civilizations, the mysticism of the king’s origin remains secretive. The rule of the kings remained hierarchal and was enthusiastically accepted by people. These stories were in fact, written down and recited to people in local sagas or myths. The divine attributes of royal blood in Malay world literature are focussed by Gul Bakawali, Hikayat Sang Boma, Hikayat Panji Semarang, Hikayat Amir Hamzah, Hikayat Malim Deman, and many more. Many stories of queens and kings and correlated with divine kingdom or leadership bestowed by God to kings. [10]
READ MORE ;
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Emy, H. V., “The Politics of Australian Democracy: Fundamentals in Dispute”, (1978)
2. Ferguson, “A narrative analysis: The Roman Catholic Church in America”. (2004)
3. Bartlett, “Blood Royal: Dynastic Politics in Medieval Europe” (2020)
4. J. Gonda, “Kingship in ancient India” (1969)
5. Morriston, “Must There Be a Standard of Moral Goodness Apart from God?” pp. 127-138. (2001)
[1] Gairdner and Spedding, Studies in English History, 245. Cf. also Mr Gairdner's remarks in the preface to Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII. xi—xm.
[2] John Neville Figgis, “The Divine Right of kings” august 1(2012)
[3] Bodhendra Kumar, “The theory of the divine origin of the state”
[4] Mazi Mbah, “Divine theory and good governance” January (2019)
[5] “History of Divine Right of Kings” New world Encyclopaedia
[6] Matthew A. “History of Divine rights notion” April 21 (2020)
[7] Matthew Wills, “Making sense of the divine rights” December 18 (2020)
[8] Barbara Yorke, “king and kingship” pp. 76-90, April (2009)
[9] Jason Yonan, “politics and Political science”
[10] J. Gonda, “Kingship in ancient India” (1969)
AUTHORED BY
NAME: SIMRAN SHADIJA
COLLEGE: SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, HYDERABAD
Comments