[Sca-cooks] Divine Right of Wheatabix Eaters

[Lonnie D. Harvel]

True,the intellectual theory of the Divine Right of Kings was not 
formulated until the 17th century, but it was formulated to sustain the 
medieval view (well, sorta). Bossuet's theory should have been called 
the "Divine Right of Dictators". I know that the period coronation 
masses and rites make reference to "divine selection" and 
"accountability to God alone". There are even some period references 
(which I should try and dig up) to the "brotherhood of kings" as a 
divinely ordained body.

Anyway, below from the Washington State University online course in 
World Civilizations. The author is Dr. Hooker, the site is 
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ , and I did not get permission before swiping 
this...

Since SCA kings are constrained by Corpora, to some extent by the 
Peerages, and by the elected body of the Board, it sort of fits. Two a 
year by "Right of Arms" (always assuming the worthy warrior is not 
left-handed) is obviously fabricated, but it gives us more opportunities 
for Coronation Feasts!

Aoghann

Phil Troy / G. Tacitus Adamantius wrote:

>
> Actually, I understood that the term "Royalist" applies to a 
> reactionary position in support of an arguably threatened Crown during 
> the English Civil War. The first European king to genuinely resemble 
> the definition most often used by SCAdians (all that "divine right" 
> stuff) is probably Louis XIV. I suppose if everyone really does want 
> to play this game the out-of-period way, that's okay, I guess, but... 
> <shrug>...
>

There were, essentially, two responses to the political chaos of the 
seventeenth century, as many of the aspects of the Reformation began to 
be translated into political terms (see the discussion on John Milton). 
On the one hand, a group of thinkers led initially by Hugo Grotius 
(1583-1645), believed that natural laws governed states and their 
relations. Drawing on the thought of Greek and Roman Stoicism, where the 
idea of "natural law" originates, Grotius and others believed that there 
were constant and immutable rational laws which should be applied to all 
governments. In many ways, this concept is very similar to the Roman 
concept of the Law of Nations, which is also derived from Stoic 
principles. On the other hand, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) 
reinforced medieval notions of kingship in his theory of the *Divine 
Right of Kings*, a theory which argued that certain kings ruled because 
they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable 
to no person except God.

The origin of this concept extends as far back into European, Middle 
Eastern, and Northern African history as the practice of monarchy does; 
as a legitimation of authority, the idea that monarchs are divinely 
chosen—often carried much further than the assertion that the monarch 
/is / divine which leaves little room for argument. The problem for 
Europe, however, is the fundamentally anti-political nature of early 
Christianity, this anti-political aspect of foundational Christianity 
threw the institution of emperorship and kingship into question. If 
Christ rejects all political actions and institutions, how can one 
justify having a monarch? Saint Augustine in /The City of God / set out 
the theoretical framework for the institution of Christian monarchy in 
his concept of the Two Cities, the City of God, that is, the body of 
believers, and the City of Man, that is, the secular world. Although 
these two cities are in spiritual conflict, the City of Man was 
instituted by God, according to Augustine, in order to secure the safety 
and security of the members of the City of God. Therefore, monarchs are 
placed on their thrones by God for a specific purpose. Although they may 
be ungodly, to question their authority is in essence to question God's 
purpose for both the City of Man and the City of God. This, or some form 
of this, made up the foundation of medieval and Renaissance theories of 
monarchy.

Bossuet, however, was reacting to an extreme situation and carried this 
argument to its farthest extent in his doctrine of the Divine Right of 
Kings. Not only did God bestow power on certain monarchs (and he argued 
that his king, Louis XIV of France, was one such monarch), but the 
bestowal of this power legitimated autocracy (rule by one person). The 
king ruled by virtue of God's authority; therefore he should be obeyed 
in all things. No group, whether they be nobles, or a parliament, or the 
people in the street, have a right to participate in this rule; to 
question or oppose the monarch was to rebel against God's purpose. This 
doctrine of absolutism would follow a tortured course through the 
eighteenth century culminating in the French Revolution of 1789-1792 and 
the beheading of Louis XVI, the king of France.