The idea that monarchy exists, and that monarchs should rule a nation, because this is particularly agreeable to God.

This is particularly helpful to kings because blasphemy and treason become roughly the same thing.

Many who invested in this theory also believed that because the ruler was chosen by God, God would reward the decent rulers after death and punish the bad ones. Therefore, it is not any mortal's place to punish a ruler for bad actions. Instead, one should pretend to like the ruler, as this would be rewarded by God (as if God was saying "just trust me on this one, mortals").

All information from lectures by professor Storch at the University of Wisconsin - Rock County.

There are two important points to the Divine Right of Kings.

POINT I
Kings received their power from God; and

POINT II
Kings were answerable only to God.



The second point is subtle, but very important. It meant that the King was answerable to no authority, religious or secular. So, even if a ruler was 'bad', it was no man's place to question this - if God wanted him out, He would do it on His own terms - also called 'death'.

Also, this gave the King Legitimacy. Deposing a king was akin to defying God - and who would be daring enough to follow the damned?
Cnut was, according to legend, to have shown that the Divine Right of Kings was wrong when he infamously sat on his throne at the edge of the sea and ordered it to not come any closer or to wet his boots and clothes. The water invariably came nearer and (what a surprise) he got a tad bit wet. This proved to his subjects that he was just an average man and that God was not listening to him.

If this was his intention is another matter.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.