Divine Right Of Kings Origin
Curated/Reviewed by Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
The divine right of kings, divine right, or God'south mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which the king (or queen) is pre-selected every bit an heir prior to their nativity.
Past pre-selecting the king's physical manifestation, the governed populace actively (rather than but passively) easily the metaphysical option of the male monarch's soul – which will inhabit the body and thereby rule them – over to God. In this style, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical human activity of humility or submission towards the Godhead.
Consequentially, it asserts that a monarch (e.grand. a rex) is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from a divine say-so, like the monotheist volition of God. The monarch is thus not field of study to the will of his people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It implies that only divine say-so can approximate an unjust monarch and that any endeavour to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch; although this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred male monarch. The divine right has been a key element for legitimizing many absolute monarchies.
Pre-Christian Conceptions
The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified Roman emperors and some members of their families with the "divinely sanctioned" potency (auctoritas) of the Roman State. The official offering of cultus to a living emperor acknowledged his office and rule as divinely approved and constitutional: his Principate should therefore demonstrate pious respect for traditional Republican deities and mores.
Many of the rites, practices and status distinctions that characterized the cult to emperors were perpetuated in the theology and politics of the Christianized Empire.[1]
Christian Origins
Overview
Outside of Christianity, kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. Withal, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in ane Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach or king over State of israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would non raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord'due south anointed".
Adomnan of Iona is one of the earliest Christian proponents of this concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish gaelic Male monarch Diarmait mac Cerbaill'southward assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch. Adomnan also recorded a story near Saint Columba supposedly being visited by an affections carrying a drinking glass book, who told him to ordain Aedan mac Gabrain as Male monarch of Dal Riata. Columba initially refused, and the angel answered past whipping him and enervating that he perform the ordination considering God had commanded information technology. The same angel visited Columba on three successive nights. Columba finally agreed, and Aedan came to receive ordination. At the ordination Columba told Aedan that so long as he obeyed God'south laws, so none of his enemies would prevail confronting him, just the moment he broke them, this protection would stop, and the same whip with which Columba had been struck would be turned against the king. Adomnan's writings most likely influenced other Irish writers, who in turn influenced continental ideas as well. Pepin the Short'due south coronation may have also come from the same influence.[2] The Carolingian dynasty and the Holy Roman Emperors also influenced all subsequent western ideas of kingship.
In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just every bit he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political scientific discipline. For example, Richard I of England alleged at his trial during the nutrition at Speyer in 1193: "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions", and information technology was Richard who first used the motto "Dieu et mon droit" ("God and my correct") which is however the motto of the Monarch of the Uk.
With the ascension of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century, the theory of divine right justified the king's absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. Henry Viii of England declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and exerted the power of the throne more than any of his predecessors. As a political theory, it was further developed past James VI of Scotland (1567–1625), and came to the strength in England nether his reign equally James I of England (1603–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715) strongly promoted the theory as well.
Scots Texts of James VI of Scotland
The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597–1598 by James VI of Scotland despite Scotland never having believed in the theory and where the monarch was regarded as the "first among equals" on a par with his people. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the powers of a king, was written to edify his 4-yr-old son Henry Frederick that a king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from the god a burden of government, whereof he must be countable". He based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible, as noted past the following quote from a speech to parliament delivered in 1610 every bit James I of England:
The land of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not simply God'south lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God'south throne, just even by God himself, they are called gods. In that location exist 3 principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their ability after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a rex is true parens patriae [parent of the land], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of homo.[iii]
James's reference to "God'southward lieutenants" is plain a reference to the text in Romans thirteen where Paul refers to "God's ministers".
(one) Permit every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no ability only of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to skillful works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and 1000 shalt accept praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for adept. Simply if k do that which is evil, be agape; for he beareth non the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but besides for conscience sake. (half dozen) For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fearfulness; honour to whom honour.[4]
Western Conceptions
Overview
The conception of ordination brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, simply the overriding metaphor in James'due south handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Simply as no misconduct on the role of a father tin can costless his children from obedience to the 5th commandment",[v] James besides had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights. The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. Information technology asserts that a monarch is subject field to no earthly potency, deriving his right to dominion directly from the will of God. The king is thus non subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, peculiarly in Protestant countries) the church. A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does concord, however, that the male monarch is bailiwick to the church and the pope, although completely irreproachable in other means; simply co-ordinate to this doctrine in its strong course, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that whatsoever effort to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the volition of God and may constitute a sacrilegious human activity.
1 passage in scripture supporting the idea of divine correct of kings was used by Martin Luther, when urging the secular authorities to crush the Peasant Rebellion of 1525 in Federal republic of germany in his Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, basing his argument on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13:one–7.
It is related to the aboriginal Catholic philosophies regarding monarchy, in which the monarch is God's vicegerent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. Still, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence, the monarch is always subject to natural and divine law, which are regarded as superior to the monarch. The possibility of monarchy failing morally, overturning natural law, and degenerating into a tyranny oppressive of the general welfare was answered theologically with the Cosmic concept of extra-legal tyrannicide, ideally ratified by the pope. Until the unification of Italia, state of the vatican city did, from the time Christianity became the Roman state organized religion, assert on that ground its primacy over secular princes; even so this exercise of power never, fifty-fifty at its zenith, amounted to theocracy, fifty-fifty in jurisdictions where the Bishop of Rome was the temporal authorisation.
Catholic Justified Permission
Cosmic thought justified submission to the monarchy past reference to the following:
- The One-time Testament, in which God chose kings to dominion over State of israel, starting time with Saul who was then rejected by God in favor of David, whose dynasty continued (at least in the southern kingdom) until the Babylonian captivity.
- The New Attestation, in which the offset pope, St. Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (one Peter 2:13–20), even though, at that fourth dimension, he was still a pagan emperor. St. Paul agreed with St. Peter that subjects should be obedient to the powers that be because they are appointed by God, equally he wrote in his Epistle to the Romans xiii:i–vii. Besides, Jesus Christ proclaims in the Gospel of Matthew that ane should "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"; that is at beginning, literally, the payment of taxes every bit binding those who use the imperial currency (Encounter Matthew 22:15–22). Jesus told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven co-ordinate to John 19:10–11.
- The endorsement by the popes and the church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, subsequently the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne and his successors, the Catholic Holy Roman Emperors.
The French Huguenot nobles and clergy, having rejected the pope and the Catholic Church, were left only with the supreme power of the male monarch who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the countervailing power of the papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the state and had go subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the king, and he became an absolute power. In theory, divine, natural, customary, and constitutional law notwithstanding held sway over the rex, but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was hard to encounter how they could be enforced, since the king could non be tried by any of his ain courts.
Some of the symbolism within the coronation anniversary for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Cosmic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realize this, the anniversary is most entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor). However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there, since the real governing potency of the monarch was all but extinguished past the Whig revolution of 1688–89 (encounter Glorious Revolution).
The concept of divine correct incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "imperial God-given rights", which teach that "the correct to rule is anointed by God", although this idea is found in many other cultures, including Aryan and Egyptian traditions. In pagan religions, the king was often seen every bit a kind of god and then was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Cosmic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and then accomplished, for the very first fourth dimension, a counterbalanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.
Thomas Aquinas condoned actress-legal tyrannicide in the worst of circumstances:
When at that place is no recourse to a superior by whom judgment can exist made most an invader, then he who slays a tyrant to liberate his fatherland is [to be] praised and receives a reward.—Commentary on the Magister Sententiarum [7]
On the other paw, Aquinas forbade the overthrow of whatever morally, Christianly and spiritually legitimate king by his subjects. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was that if a subject field may overthrow his superior for some bad police, who was to be the judge of whether the constabulary was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior, then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the capricious judgement of an inferior, and thus all law was under constant threat. Towards the cease of the Heart Ages, many philosophers, such every bit Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez, propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Sky required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals and consult his ministers; however, this concept made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.
The French prelate Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet fabricated a classic statement of the doctrine of divine right in a sermon preached before King Louis Fourteen:[8]
Les rois règnent par moi, dit la Sagesse éternelle: 'Per me reges regnant'; et de là nous devons conclure non seulement que les droits de la royauté sont établis par ses lois, mais que le choix des personnes est un effet de sa providence.
Kings reign past Me, says Eternal Wisdom: 'Per me reges regnant' [in Latin]; and from that nosotros must conclude not merely that the rights of royalty are established by its laws, merely also that the choice of persons [to occupy the throne] is an result of its providence.
Divine Right and Protestantism
Before the Reformation the anointed rex was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes (see the Investiture Controversy); afterwards the Reformation he (or she if queen regnant) became this in Protestant states for religious purposes as well.[ix]
In England it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, by and large discarded by the clergy – dalmatic, alb and stole – continued to be amid the insignia of the sovereign. Moreover, this sacrosanct grapheme he caused not by virtue of his "sacring", merely by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV, would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any office of their title to reign; information technology was no more than the consecration of their title.[ten]
In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was adult to its virtually extreme logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century; its almost famous exponent was Sir Robert Filmer. It was the primary issue to be decided past the English language Civil State of war, the Royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the Parliamentarians that this say-so is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people.[10]
Once the king'due south power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV's famous saying: "L' état, c'est moi!",[ten] or limited but by his own complimentary act; in the other his actions would be governed past the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would exist ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr";[10] information technology was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church building of the Restoration; merely information technology suffered a rude blow when James II of England made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 made an end of it every bit a slap-up political force. This has led to the ramble development of the Crown in Uk, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary activeness.[10]
Iranian Globe
Khvarenah is an Iranian and Zoroastrian concept, which literally means glory, near divine right of the kings. In Iranian view, kings would never rule, unless Khvarenah is with them, and they volition never fall unless Khvarenah leaves them. For example, according to the Kar-namag of Ardashir, when Ardashir I of Persia and Artabanus V of Parthia fought for the throne of Iran, on the road Artabanus and his contingent are overtaken by an enormous ram, which is besides following Ardashir. Artabanus's religious advisors explain to him that the ram is the manifestation of the khwarrah of the ancient Iranian kings, which is leaving Artabanus to join Ardashir.[11]
Divine Correct in Asia
Overview
In early Mesopotamian culture, kings were ofttimes regarded as deities after their expiry. Shulgi of Ur was among the showtime Mesopotamian rulers to declare himself to be divine. This was the straight forerunner to the concept of "Divine Right of kings", also every bit in the Egyptian and Roman religions.
Mandate of Heaven
In China and East Asia, rulers justified their rule with the philosophy of the Mandate of Heaven, which, although similar to the European concept, diameter several fundamental differences. While the divine right of kings granted unconditional legitimacy, the Mandate of Heaven was dependent on the behaviour of the ruler, the Son of Heaven. Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, merely it could be displeased with a despotic ruler and thus withdraw its mandate, transferring it to a more suitable and righteous person. This withdrawal of mandate also afforded the possibility of revolution as a means to remove the errant ruler; revolt was never legitimate under the European framework of divine right.
In Red china, the right of rebellion confronting an unjust ruler had been a part of the political philosophy ever since the Zhou dynasty, whose rulers had used this philosophy to justify their overthrow of the previous Shang dynasty. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt equally evidence that the Mandate of Sky had passed on to the usurper.
In Japan, the Son of Heaven title was less conditional than its Chinese equivalent. There was no divine mandate that punished the emperor for declining to rule justly. The right to dominion of the Japanese emperor, descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu, was absolute.[12] The Japanese emperors traditionally wielded footling secular power; generally, it was the duty of the sitting emperor to perform rituals and make public appearances, while true power was held by regents, high-ranking ministers, a commander-in-main of the emperor's military known equally the shōgun, or even retired emperors depending on the time flow.
Sultans in Southeast Asia
In the Malay Annals, the rajas and sultans of the Malay States (today Malaysia, Negara brunei darussalam and Philippines) equally well as their predecessors, such as the Indonesian kingdom of Majapahit, likewise claimed divine right to rule. The sultan is mandated past God and thus is expected to pb his country and people in religious matters, ceremonies as well as prayers. This divine correct is called Daulat (which means 'state' in Standard arabic), and although the notion of divine correct is somewhat obsolete, it is still plant in the phrase Daulat Tuanku that is used to publicly acclaim the reigning Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the other sultans of Malaysia. The exclamation is similar to the European "Long live the King", and often accompanies pictures of the reigning monarch and his consort on banners during regal occasions. In Indonesia, especially on the island of Java, the sultan's divine right is more commonly known as the way, or 'revelation', but it is non hereditary and tin be passed on to distant relatives.
South Asian Kings
In Dravidian civilization, before Brahmanism and specially during the Sangam period, emperors were known equally இறையர் (Iraiyer), or "those who spill", and kings were called கோ (Ko) or கோன் (Kon). During this time, the distinction between kingship and godhood had non notwithstanding occurred, equally the caste system had non yet been introduced. Fifty-fifty in Modern Tamil, the word for temple is 'கோயில்', meaning "king's house".[13] Kings were understood to be the "agents of God", as they protected the world like God did.[fourteen] This may well accept been continued post-Brahminism in Tamilakam, as the famous Thiruvalangadu inscription states:
"Having noticed past the marks (on his body) that Arulmozhi was the very Vishnu" in reference to the Emperor Raja Raja Chola I.
Rights and Opposition
Historically, many notions of rights were disciplinarian and hierarchical, with dissimilar people granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the right of a father to respect from his son did not indicate a right for the son to receive a render from that respect; and the divine right of kings, which permitted absolute power over subjects, did non leave a lot of room for many rights for the subjects themselves.[15]
In contrast, modern conceptions of rights ofttimes emphasize liberty and equality equally among the well-nigh important aspects of rights, for example in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
In the sixteenth century, both Cosmic and Protestant political thinkers began to question the idea of a monarch's "divine correct".
The Spanish Cosmic historian Juan de Mariana put forward the argument in his book De rege et regis institutione (1598) that since guild was formed by a "pact" amidst all its members, "in that location can be no doubt that they are able to telephone call a king to account".[16][17] Mariana thus challenged divine correct theories past stating in certain circumstances, tyrannicide could exist justified. Central Robert Bellarmine too "did not believe that the constitute of monarchy had whatsoever divine sanction" and shared Mariana'southward belief that at that place were times where Catholics could lawfully remove a monarch.[17]
Among groups of English language Protestant exiles fleeing from Queen Mary I, some of the primeval anti-monarchist publications emerged. "Weaned off uncritical royalism by the actions of Queen Mary … The political thinking of men like Ponet, Knox, Goodman and Hales."[18]
In 1553, Mary I, a Roman Cosmic, succeeded her Protestant half-brother, Edward VI, to the English throne. Mary set nearly trying to restore Roman Catholicism by making sure that: Edward's religious laws were abolished in the Statute of Repeal Act (1553); the Protestant religious laws passed in the time of Henry Viii were repealed; and the Revival of the Heresy Acts were passed in 1554. The Marian Persecutions began before long afterwards. In January 1555, the first of nearly 300 Protestants were burnt at the pale under "Encarmine Mary". When Thomas Wyatt the Younger instigated what became known as Wyatt's rebellion, John Ponet, the highest-ranking ecclesiastic among the exiles,[19] allegedly participated in the uprising.[20] He escaped to Strasbourg after the Rebellion's defeat and, the following year, he published A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, in which he put forward a theory of justified opposition to secular rulers.
"Ponet'southward treatise comes first in a new wave of anti-monarchical writings … It has never been assessed at its true importance, for information technology antedates past several years those more brilliantly expressed but less radical Huguenot writings which have usually been taken to represent the Tyrannicide-theories of the Reformation."[19]
Ponet's pamphlet was republished on the eve of King Charles I's execution.
According to U.South. President John Adams, Ponet'south work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on past Sidney and Locke", including the idea of a three-branched government.[21]
In due course, opposition to the divine right of kings came from a number of sources, including poet John Milton in his pamphlet The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, and Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense. Probably the ii virtually famous declarations of a right to revolution against tyranny in the English language are John Locke's Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and Finish of Civil-Authorities and Thomas Jefferson'due south conception in the United States Announcement of Independence that "all men are created equal".
Appendix
Notes
- Allen Brent, The Royal Cult and the Development of Church building Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early on Christianity before the Age of Cyprian (Brill, 1999)
- Adomnan of Iona. Life of St Columba. Penguin Books, 1995
- A speech to parliament (1610).
- Romans xiii:1-vii
- that is, the commandment: "Accolade your father …" etc., which is the 5th in the reckoning usual amidst Jewish, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations, but to be co-ordinate to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of his good volition …"
- Passional Christi und Antichristi Total view on Google Books
- McDonald, Hugh. "Some Brief Remarks on what Thomas has to say on Rebellion and Regicide". Archived from the original on 2011-09-27. Retrieved 2011-07-xxx.
- Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1845). Sermons choisis de Bossuet. Sur le devoir des rois. Firmin-Didot. p. 219.
bossuet sermons royalty.
p. 219 - I or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication at present in the public domain: Phillip, Walter Alison (1911). "Male monarch § Divine Right of Kings". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. xv (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 806.
- Phillip 1911, p. 806.
- Kar namag i Ardashir iv.xi.xvi and 4.eleven.22-23.
- Beasley, William (1999). "The Making of a Monarchy". The Japanese Experience: A Brusk History of Japan. University of California Press. p. 29.
- Ramanujan, A.One thousand. (2011). Poems of Honey and War: From the Eight Anthologies and the X Long Poems of Classical Tamil. Columbia University Press.
- N. Subramanian (1966). Śaṅgam polity: the administration and social life of the Śaṅgam Tamils. Asia Pub. Firm.
- "Divine Right of Kings". BBC. 2007-ten-11. Retrieved 2009-12-21.
[…] the idea that a king was sacred, appointed by God and above the judgment of earthly powers […] was called the Divine Right of Kings and information technology entered so powerfully into British culture during the 17th century that it shaped the pomp and circumstance of the Stuart monarchs, imbued the writing of Shakespeare and provoked the political thinking of Milton and Locke.
- Baer, Robert Five. Power & Freedom: Political Thought and Ramble Politics in the United States and Argentina ProQuest, 2008 (pp. seventy–71)
- Blumenau, Ralph. Philosophy and Living Imprint Academic, 2002 (pp. 198–199)
- Dickens, A. G. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 399.
- Dickens, A. Thousand. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 391.
- Dickens, A.Thou. (1978). The English Reformation. London & Glasgow: Fontana/Collins. p. 358.
- Adams, C. F. (1850–56). The Works of John Adams, with Life. 6. Boston. p. 4.
References
- Burgess, Glenn (October 1992). "The Divine Correct of Kings Reconsidered". The English Historical Review. 107 (425): 837–861.
- The Divine Right of Kings on In Our Time at the BBC
Originally published past Wikipedia, 09.18.2019, under a Creative Eatables Attribution-ShareAlike three.0 Unported license.
Comments
Divine Right Of Kings Origin,
Source: https://brewminate.com/a-history-of-the-notion-of-the-divine-right-of-kings/
Posted by: daviskniout.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Divine Right Of Kings Origin"
Post a Comment