Talk:Divine right of kings

Islamic Republic of Iran

If they are executing people for crimes against god, and the supreme leader/Ayatollah is acting on behalf of god, is the Islamic Republic worthy of a mention in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.37.101 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Divine right

The article should be more general, to include the divine right of presidents and other non-hereditary leaders, otherwise it has an binding to hereditary and aristocratic leaders only, which needs clarification if actual or not. Also the topic should distinguish between believer and non-believer leaders who may claim divine right.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The DROK is a specific concept used by Historians for the ideas that were full-fledged in England from Henry VIII until Cromwell and the Puritans. Talking about other things is interesting but not particularly relevant. The article needs to be much more sharply focussed on its topic.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Apparent Bias Under Christian Conceptions

There is a serious dearth of citations in this article and some sections border on polemical. Instead of giving a historiography of Divine Right (pre-modern, early modern, and criticisms), most of the article contains opinion that is bizarrely anti-Protestant and apologetic towards Catholicism, when no apology is needed.

Many examples:

1. Under "Christian Conceptions", the Catholic view on monarchy is stated clearly, without comparing or contrasting to the Divine Right doctrine, and then Acquinas' view that a tyrant may be killed is stated almost as an apology for the acceptability of monarchy in the Catholic view. It is as if this was material for a high-school catechism class. No such apology is needed for serious inquirers and if anything, Acquinas and other venerable Catholic thinkers add richly to Catholic and other theistic views on monarchy. Then, in the Protestant views subsection, Divine Right is assumed to be a problem, for which the Pope's erstwhile countervailing power to kings was the pre-modern antidote. If Catholics believe that Divine Right is problematic, or that it is a by-product of the Protestant Reformation, say so clearly, in the Catholic view section. If historians believe this, say so clearly, in the introductory or history section, with citations.

2. The Protestant views section features prominently some citation-less rubbish stating that most Protestants don't realize the monarch of the UK is coronated after the traditional Christian (Catholic) way of the "Holy Roman Emperor". Though this may well be true, the relevance of this to Divine Right appears to be missing. If Divine Right is associated with Protestant views: one, a citation is in order; two, a Catholic Imperial ceremony for the UK's monarch hardly supports this without clear explanation. Currently, the Protestant views section is curiously missing Protestant views on Divine Right.

3. James of Scotland's views on Divine Right were regarded as outlandish by the English Parliament, but no mention at all of contemporaneous criticism is mentioned.

4. Where are the views of Enlightenment thinkers (Rousseau, Montesqieu, Blackstone) and Parliamentarians, or the history of their suppression or toleration by "absolutist" governments in England and France? It would be better to have a Criticisms section for criticisms of divine right from any corner, including Catholic Aquinas, English Parliamentarians, and Enlightenment thinkers.

I am fully cognizant that the medieval (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church in the west is often baselessly believed to be the source of many authoritarian superstitions, with secular school textbooks often falsely stating libels like the Great Chain of Being and Divine Right of Kings being church teachings that enforced absolutism before the Enlightenment. And it is perfectly within the scope of this article to correct this, but it needs to be corrected explicitly and clearly with facts, citations, and evidence. 2001:569:5667:5A00:9153:8BEA:257A:4FC4 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)Edward

Y I have rearranged the article and its headings to put things together that belong together, and to remove digressions from the start of sections to the end of their sections. I think this makes the article more about the specific "Divine Right of Kings" rather than diffuse "divine right of kings", if you get what I mean. I agree that the article, even with my editorial improvements, has some unsatisfactory material, and that it needs a lot better citations.

As to the issue of anti-Protestant bias, I read it the opposite, as completely misrepresenting the Catholic position too (though I hope this is now improved from my re-arrangements): the common ground is that the article seems to say that the theory is a religious one coming from churches/confessions rather than a political one coming from royal courts. I put in a reference to Thomas Beckett which at least hints that Kings have long tried to agrandize themselves. I have also tried to use national terms rather than "catholic" or "protestant" where those national terms reflect what is going on. I removed an unnecesary reference to Mary's persecution of Protestants: the text suggested that the persecution came then Wyatt's rebellion happened because of Mary's tyranny: however, the persecution came as a result of Wyatt's rebellion the year before: I think that could be reasonably taken as an example of explicit anti-Catholic bias (if one was interested in doing so: better just to improve the article.)

I agree strongly that what is needed is more WP:RS WP:CITE: in particular, seeing the DROK as a reaction to the European Wars of Religion, and mentioning pre-Reformation opponents (such as Erasmus, Colet, Wycliff). Histories of the Reformation, before the last 50 years or so, have been plagued by partisan commentary, and it would be good to have more references from this millenium.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Content and meaning of introductory paragraphs

The introductory paragraphs of this article, being without citations, give an extremely peculiar account of a name that, it should be noted, is used with incredibly imprecise breadth in many places. The origin of the particular 'definition', if it is not entirely new, would be helpful, even if the 'definition' is corrupted in its current form. Whatever the case, substantial revision is likely needed, although an actual presiding principle of how to define such an ill-used term will be needed in this. (Moreover, it appears that the article expressly contradicts itself in some areas as of now - see, for example, how one part emphatically denounces the suggestion that Thomas Aquinas allowed 'extra-legal tyrannicide', while another supports it.) Zusty001 (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Leads don't need citations per MOS:LEADCITE—blindlynx 20:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is a bit of a sesquipedalian run-on, seemingly written by a undergrad phillosphy major who is eager to show off. Like that bar scene in the movie 'Good Will Hunting'. 2601:152:C100:2D56:94A7:BFBE:8E60:4A8E (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Y I have moved digressive and excessive material from lede to new start section "Concepts". The lede needs to summarize the contents in a small number of focussed paragraphs. I may also add some dating. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC) information.

Why is article headed with a portrait of Henry VIII?

At present the article lead is accompanied by a portrait of Henry VIII and a reference to his being made Supreme Head of the Church of England. But no reference is made to this in the article text, and rightly so because his becoming Supreme Head of the English Church 25 years after coming to the throne had nothing to do (or only very tangentially so) with his divine right to be king of England. I suggest that it be removed.Sbishop (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)