James I and the Doctrine of The Divine Right of Kings

George P. Landow, Professor of English and Art History, Brown University

"As the king had no standing army, and did not even attempt to form one, it would have been wise in him to avoid any conflict with his people. But such was his indiscretion that, whlle he altogether neglected the means which alone could make him really absolute, he constantly put forward, in the most offensive form, claims of which none of his predecessors had ever dreamed. It was at this time that those strange theories which . . . which became the badge of the most violent class of Tories and high churchmen, first emerged into notice. It was gravely maintained that the Supreme Being regarded hereditary monarchy, as opposed to other forms of government, with peculiar favour; that the rule of succession, in order of primogeniture was a divine institution, . . . ; that no human power. . . could deprive the legitimate prince of his rights; that his authority was necessarily always despotic; that the laws by which, in England and in other countries the prerogative was limited, were to be regarded merely as concessions which the sovereign had freely made and might at his pleasure resume; and that any treaty into which a king might enter with his people was merely a declaration of his present intentions, and not a contract of which the performance conld be demanded. . . . this theory, though intended to strengthen the foundations of government, altogether unsettles them." (Thomas Babington Macaulay, A History of England).

Content last updated 1996