The doctrine of the divine right of Kings was accepted as inviolable for nearly a thousand years. It officially began when Pope Leo II, on Christmas Day, 800 A.D. crowned Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. It officially ended 1806 A.D. when the last Holy Roman Emperor, Francis II, was defeated by Napoleon Bonaparte at the battle of Austerlitz.
The idea behind the doctrine is that a Monarch crowned by the Holy Roman Church is subject to no earthly authority. His right to rule comes directly from God. Reciprocally, the Monarch is bound by oath to be defender, and promoter of The Holy Roman Church.
All that is official history. The longer, unofficial, history is shrouded in the mists of time. Secular leaders have probably always considered alliance with spiritual leaders to be good business for both. For centuries, most of these pairings were local and small, but even as empires sprouted and wasted, the notion of secular authority, backed by spiritual authority, remained.
A few hundred years before Christ, a newcomer, Rome, started gobbling up the neighboring empires. This went on until Rome controlled almost all of the ancient world. First as a Republic, later as Empire. Rome is well known for its ruthlessness in war, but even though it lacked ruth, Rome made up for that in its commitment to law. Once conquered, a Roman citizen could look forward to many happy years of peace and prosperity. This was known as Pax Romana - the Roman Peace. Before Roman control most people were subject to frequent raids by all sorts of war lords just over the hill and across the river. The Romans made sure that if any rape and pillage was going to be done, it would done by them and not by any non-Roman freelancers. As far as Rome was concerned these marauders were outlaws, and punished as such. This relentless policing was very efficient and much appreciated by the citizens.
Pax Romana lasted for quite a while, by various accounting 500 to 700 years. Then it was gone. Rome didn’t exactly fall, it faded like General MacArthur’s old soldier. As Rome faded, chaos followed. Local thugs and savage gangs with larceny in their hearts ransacked as they pleased.
This period we call the Dark Ages.
Some of the more responsible war lords, here and there, did what they could to impose law and order. They were hindered by the complete lack of agreement on what constituted law and order. Disputes of justice were settled by the sword. As were disputes of succession. Considerable violence followed the death of a king. Those who would be king clashed until only one was left standing. The fighting crushed crops, killed bystanders and livestock, and left the countryside in shambles. And, so it went for centuries. Help was on the way - from long ago and far away.
Around 300 A. D. the future Roman emperor Constantine fought his rival, Maxentius near the Milvian bridge just outside Rome. Details vary, but the basic story is that before the battle, Constantine had a miraculous vision. He saw a cross in the sky, and he heard a voice saying, “By this sign you will conquer”. He did conquer. He then proclaimed Christianity to be the official religion of the Roman Empire.
The result was far reaching. Missionary monks spread the faith throughout every corner of the Empire. Their speed enhanced by excellent Roman roads. Their safety insured by stern Roman law. As the Roman Empire faded, the Christian faith bloomed. The effect of Christianity on pagan Europe was dramatic - but slow. In the few hundred years between Constantine and Charlemagne, the incessant violence between kings and usurpers was gradually mitigated by Christian converts. The missionaries had brought with them not only the gentle commands of Jesus, but also memories of Roman law and order. Mayhem was becoming embarrassing. Eventually, kings were expected to claim their thrones with more than brute force. At minimum they should have a blood-line connection to a royal dynasty, and along with it, at maximum, the blessing of the local bishop. Otherwise their legitimacy could be challenged.
This evolved into the doctrine of Divine Right.
To the modern mind the idea that a king can do whatever he wants, answerable only to God, seems outlandishly wrong. This is an anachronistic response.
Imagine a Dark Age peasant. He never can be certain from one year to the next that he will be able to harvest his crops. He can never know when his village will next be destroyed by rampaging contenders for the throne. Even life and limb is uncertain. The idea of an all-powerful protective king probably sounded pretty good to him. Such a king; militarily mighty, respective of custom, and ordained by God sounds like just the right solution. And - such
a king cannot do whatever he wants.
Divine Right kings were expected to preserve the peace, and God’s law. If they failed either or both, their rule was in jeopardy.
A new force was now in order: The Kings Peace.
It was a notion directly related to its predecessor: Pax Romana.
As order was gradually restored, the Dark Ages morphed into the Middle Ages, then into the Renaissance, then into the Enlightenment, then into Modern Times.
Without the intervening doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings we might still be in the Dark Ages.
I think a little respect is due.
Coda: Napoleon crowned himself, thereby rejecting God’s law for his own. It was the beginning of the Modern World.