Agnostic.com

5 1

Divine Right: Born to Rule.

What is the ultimate origin of the concept of ‘born to rule’ or of ‘divine right’? Why should someone who just happened to be the product of a particular sperm cell and a particular egg cell require worship as if they were a god? Does it have anything to do with real supernatural deities anointing those with the ‘right stuff’ genetics, those who they see fit to rule, or perhaps there’s a more intimate connection. Perhaps in fact it’s all nonsense.

Mythologies are full of intimate sexual liaisons between the divine and the human. Just like the ‘Sons of God’ mated with the ‘Daughters of Men’ and the Greco-Roman gods and goddesses mated with mortals (to cite two of numerous case histories), resulting offspring would have been descended from the gods and thus weren’t quite your ordinary Joe and Josephine Blow, with membership in that great unwashed club of the public citizen. So, what’s it about these special descendents of the gods – demigods and demigoddesses? Why are they a cut (or two or twenty) above the rest of us?

But first, let’s substitute supernatural gods for flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials, ‘ancient astronauts’ who actually had an up-close-and-personal hand in the origin and evolution of the human species (another common thread of all things mythological, albeit interpreted in a religious or supernatural context).

Well, if you really are a genetic product of an alien, of a technological advanced extraterrestrial, I guess that does make you a cut or twenty above those who can’t claim an out-of-this-world parentage. Gods or aliens (same difference IMHO), well they fawn on their half-breed descendents as something special – the go-betweens twixt them and the great unwashed. Those go-betweens are those born to rule by divine right (divine being a property of said gods or aliens they bestowed on their go-betweens).

There’s no shortage of historical examples – from the kings and queens of Europe to the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the emperors of ancient China and Japan. All had the direct authority of God or the gods behind them; many were also worshiped as deities in their own right and as such could claim ancestral lineage back to their gods.

That was then; now is now. Surely in today’s society nobody actually believes those who were born to rule were actual offspring descendens of the gods or ET or anointed by same as being of extraordinary leadership stock that would be passed down from generation to generation forever and ever. In fact there would be those few and far between who would justify in fact that anyone anymore is born to actually rule because of ‘superior’ ancestors. So rather than those born to rule who actually rule, instead those now born to rule are just for all practical purposes figureheads. The British colonies, like Australia, are now democracies like England; ditto other European countries that retain some sort of royalty. Japan is a democracy too though there are those alive today who recall when the Japanese emperor was a literal god.

The question is, if those born to rule don’t in most cases actually rule, but are mere figureheads, why not get rid of these divine right parasites, be they kings or queens or emperors or empresses, even sultans; parasites who serve no useful function yet lead lavish lifestyles? Egypt got rid of the pharaoh. China booted out the emperor. It’s not that hard. Still, that’s not yet the general way of the world, so let’s…

Fast-forward a bit to the general concept of heads or figureheads of nations that were born to rule. They are not elected officials who claim no ancestry from the divine; they are not those who took power and who rule by force – dictators, tyrants, etc. that can’t trace their lineage or ancestry back to the gods (even if some dictators claim otherwise and demand their subjects so treat them as gods too). So fast-forward to those who become leaders or rulers (leadership is sometimes in short supply) just because their parents were rulers and their grandparents before them and back and back it goes.

Authority based on divine right; authority vested because of an eventual connection (however remote) back to the gods and the gods’ anointment of them and their descendents to rule forevermore, cuts no mustard with me.

I’ve always found it difficult to accept that just because the sperm of a king or emperor meets the egg of a queen or empress that the resulting product is somehow better and more deserving at being a ruler than the resulting offspring of any other male/female conception. Yet apparently millions of people have and some still do accept that as a given. You are born to rule by divine right because you were born to those who were born to rule by divine right who in turn were, etc.

Yet as far as I can tell, such born to rule offspring (usually firstborn males) have to sit on the throne in the same manner as the rest of us and put their pants on one leg at a time. They require all of the sorts of stuff we mortals that belong to the lower class, the great unwashed do – stuff like oxygen, water, food, sleep, medical care, etc. In short, there’s no special distinguishing feature of any kind that separates them from us other than a total accident of having a divine or ‘royal’ sperm meet an egg (probably of similar lineage) for their conception. A newborn and naked baby that’s heir to the throne looks no different than a newborn and naked baby that’s the offspring of commoners. So in short, divine right, even if it ultimately derived from the ‘gods’ – or those ‘ancient astronauts’ - gets no respect from me since those claiming divine right, that born to rule status, don’t have to earn anything; an elected official at least earns his or her right to rule.

johnprytz 7 Mar 24
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It is difficult to make the case for a constitutional monarchy but I will try. There is a character in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy who is ruler of the galaxy. Adams makes the valid point that anyone who would want the job would be totally unsuitable for it.
Democracy was according to Churchill "A terrible system, its just that we have not found a better one". It has lots of faults, people are fickle, shortsighted and easily swayed. For this reason there are checks and balances built into all good democracies. So lets examine a monarchy as compared to other systems.
One of the worst systems is the US style presidential one, sorry to all you yanks but it is. It has been an almost total disaster whenever it has been exported to other counties and even the US citizens feel the need to arm themselves in order to keep it in check.
Not many others are any better. An old Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". It is quite natural to want dramatic change and man the barricades when you are 18. It is not as desirable when your raising kids of you own. If you look at states that have monarchies compared to those that dont. You will see much more constitutional crisis than those that dont. Spain transcended from a fascist dictatorship to a western democracy with its help. Bulgaria even elected a monarch to help in its transition.
In the UK all soldiers and servicemen swear allegiance to the crown. As do the judiciary, elected representatives and the state religious leaders. Not the constitution which is open to interpretation or the govt. which is variable and could be in dispute. Therefore no coup can occur without the armed forces either breaking their oaths or the crowns approval. It is the power that is not used that maintains the status quo.

The post said this "The question is, if those born to rule don’t in most cases actually rule, but are mere figureheads, why not get rid of these divine right parasites, be they kings or queens or emperors or empresses, even sultans; parasites who serve no useful function yet lead lavish lifestyles? Egypt got rid of the pharaoh. China booted out the emperor. It’s not that hard" Holding up China and Egypt as examples for ditching monarchy just proves my point on stability and rule. Who would have wanted to live through Maos cultural revolution?
Let me also deal with the no useful function part. It is hard to quantify soft power. However just this morning a news item came on that prince Charles and his wife are on a 1st official visit to Cuba. This sends a message. It says that unlike its northern neighbour, the UK is ready to do business. Unlike a political visit where questions of Cubas human rights would be raised. A trip like this just says "Hello". This is just one example of soft power. There are so many more that I could use.
In short, I can only say that if it aint broke why fix it.

@johnprytz Yes you are right but only when the king had absolute power. In the past monarchy by assassination was the best available system. The ability to change govt has now quite rightly been taken over by democracy. What the queens role (in the UK and commonwealth) now is, is a backstop institution. She is intentionally a-political. Any political president can lead to partisan decisions in a time of crises. For the record, every time the UK monarchy has been called upon to act in this role. It has come down on the side of reform.

@johnprytz

@johnprytz But there have been quite a few presidents and dictators. Can you name any that lived under a constitutional monarchy?

@johnprytz It should be if you are considering becoming a republic.

@johnprytz Didnt Australia have a referendum on this in 1999?

@johnprytz Ah so you don't want a monarchy and don't believe in a democracy

@johnprytz Well its a constitutional change and it should be hard to do. I wish we had had the same kind of high bar for brexit.

0

It was James 1 of England/ vi of Scotland who coined the phrase "divine right of kings". Quite understandable in those unenlightened religious times. Fortunately we live in more enlightened times now.

0

That was pretty cool! I don't think I was divine sperm. But definitely a gold medalist!

0

Congrats, Christ put it like "leave the world" but same diff I guess

1

I read an article that suggested that if extraterresteral life existed it would so completely alien to us (literally) that we would not be able to recognise it as 'life' consequently it is unlikely that we would be able to create offspring. Think about it, we cannot even create viable offspring with our closest genetic relatives let alone something that potentially isn't even carbon based.

Respect, you actually read oone of Johns posts.

@Fernapple We all have our own thing. John's signature is to write up a book. I always open them just to scroll down while counting in my head just for the fun of it ?

@IamNobody Yep me too.

@Fernapple I do read them. He takes the trouble to post them. He isn't up for chatting but the posts are often interesting.

Edited to make sense!

@Amisja True.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:316942
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.