>I would know by what power I am called hither ... I would know by what authority, I mean lawful; there are many unlawful authorities in the world; thieves and robbers by the high-ways ... Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the judgement of God upon this land. Think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater ... I have a trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it, to answer a new unlawful authority; therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me.
Threadly reminder Bradshaw and his cronies never actually answered this question from King Charles I before (illegally) executing him.

*blocks your path*

You were summoned here by the lawful power of the people, which has been superior to the power of the king ever since the signing of the magna carta in runnymede in 1215

>>17830915 (OP)
i think the roundheads were a bit over zealous but charles had every chance to keep his head if he would get off his high horse and accept responsibility for his actions

>>17830915 (OP)
>I would know by what power I am called hitler
W-what did he mean by this?

>>17830915 (OP)
You lost

>>17830915 (OP)
>God doesn't do shit about it
Seems the Puritans were right in the end

>>17831097
Wrong thread/board, bot

Bumping because this is the best recurring thread on /his/ these days

OP I have this on my to-read list. Should I just jump straight in with Cromwell/Charlie biographies or is it better to understand what the fuck was actually happening in England to appreciate them?

>>17830915 (OP)
the divine right of kings is heresy stemming from that ill fated decision from Nicaea which proposed the Spirit has also come from the Son, thus that kings have special authority owing to Jesus being their progenitor. Thank the Lord that kings no longer attempt to make such a claim, and for shame that nobody at that time would stand up to him about it. I wonder if they even understood the issue well enough to form the proper rebuttal.

>>17830915 (OP)
My favorite era of history

>>17832568
No. Divine right of kings comes from a specific understanding of a role of kings in barbarian tribes of the late antiquity and early middle ages. Their major role was to uphold the laws, which were seen as given by gods(later God) and sanctified by tradition. What gave them this power was being part of the main, most senior branch of some legendary first national family usually going back to some deity. This can be seen in the fact that for instance if an orphan couldn't be cared for by relatives in 7 or 8 degrees or relation to him, he would become kingly responsibility - once you run out of anything resembling close relative the "father of the nation" takes over. The same logic was given to for example taxing inheritance, the inheritance would be split into 3/5th going to n-degeree relative and then of the remaining 3/5th would go to n+1 degree and so on until the king takes what's left. The furthest relative of all his subjects. Now of course the real genealogy was probably not so pretty but the official legal doctrine said otherwise.

This god-given-law upholding great great grandson of deity thing was later Christianised into what's known as the divine right of kings. The formulations used in the middle eastern states such as Byzantium were much different from this legal framework which did seep into some of the rhetoric divine right held(the idea of the emperor or king being anointed by God is a far echo of the middle eastern, Greek idea of the deities bestowing the king with charisma to rule, what's missing is the idea of this right to to rule being tied to genealogy for obvious reasons), but ultimately is more of a case of a ritual of anointment being replicated that then brought the rhetorics with it.

>>17832618
Kings ruled by the grace of God,the Stuarts twisted it into divine right

>>17830915 (OP)
The main issue is that he was a totally useless faggot who hid behind the divine right of kings without understanding that the Heavenly Mandate can be revoked (the Chinese knew this)

>>17830961
If only we could've said this in his face
>>17831097
He lost the battle, but won the game

>>17832618
>No.
Yes. Your assertion, that pagan beliefs had authority over such matters like the rule of God's people, is blatantly wrong, even laughable.

>>17832732
They go back to pagan conception of authority doesn't mean they would ever be phrased in pagan language by 1000 let alone 1650. As said gods were replaced by God and trying to argue otherwise is to say that somehow the legal tradition that you can clearly trace to these old barbarian codices(which includes the Longobard codex openly stating Longobards were adopted by Odin) is to argue for ancient israelite schizobabble.

>>17832618
I think it's a lot simpler than that. Pepin the Short doled out land to the Pope as a fief and effectively made him a vassal, placing him under Frankish protection. Charlemagne was recognized as emperor by the pope and this arrangement continued. Thus the ruler placed himself above the vicar of Christ, and so proved himself accountable only to God.
Because Charlemagne's empire was the precursor to almost all Western European medieval polities, this idea was passed down and fought for/against countless times. It took all the way until the 19th century to settle the question, when the Church finally backed down from the Kulturkampf in Germany.

If you want to zoom even further out, the "divine right of kings" is a Christian rationalization of the anarchic international system, which has always existed and still exists. A sovereign polity is accountable to no other by definition, so a Christian understanding of sovereignty would mean that rulers who have no overlord are only accountable to the laws of God.
Thus remains the question of what God's laws actually are, which caused countless bloody wars. Until the French Revolution and mass politics pulled the rug out from under this paradigm and forced monarchs to recognize their power had always rested on popular approval, and divine approval as a proxy for that had lost its effectiveness.

>>17832715
>won the game
His son was kicked out of England by parliament.
You lost