Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference In pagan religions, the king was often seen as a God incarnate and so was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Catholic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the two swords and so achieved, for the very first time, a balanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.
Interestingly the areas of Britain with the highest concentrations of "German" genetic input are along Wales and the West midlands. This is thought to be due to a number of factors. The Anglo-Saxons built the largest military outposts near to the main conflict zone where they battled the Welsh. Mercia is thought to be an area of high density settlement. The East of England was marshy and many of the Anglo Saxons preferred higher ground. So the Welsh are not only more linked with the Gauls but also the Angles whereas the English are more Frankish. The thing that distinguishes Yorkshire from the rest of England the most is the very small amounts of DNA linked to the Franks. From an 1887 edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs illustrated by Kronheim. According to Foxe, a Catholic speaker, Mr. Bourne, had nearly driven his Protestant listeners to riot, but Bradford came to his rescue and calmed the mob. In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its most extreme logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century; its most famous exponent was Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the English Civil War, the Royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the Parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people. [23]
the suggestion was put forward, apparently from memory, by George Borrow in his influential Lavengro: The Scholar—the Gypsy—the Priest, Part 2, 1851, p. 37: "it was old John Newton, I think, who, when he saw a man going to be hanged, said: 'There goes John Newton, but for the grace of God!" The effect of anointing was seen to be that the monarch became inviolable, so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed". Raising a hand to a king was therefore considered to be as sacrilegious as raising a hand against God and stood on equal footing as blasphemy. In essence, the king stood in place of God and was never to be challenged "without the challenger being accused of blasphemy" - except by a prophet, which under Christianity was replaced by the church. Kings reign by Me, says Eternal Wisdom: 'Per me reges regnant' [in Latin]; and from that we must conclude not only that the rights of royalty are established by its laws, but also that the choice of persons [to occupy the throne] is an effect of its providence.
On 31 January 1555, Bradford was tried and condemned to death. Bradford was taken to Newgate Prison to be burned at the stake on 1 July. Bradford was given a special " Shirt of Flame" by a Mrs. Marlet, for whom he had written a devotional work. This was a clean shirt that was sewn specifically for the burning, made in the style of a wedding shirt. "This clothing with a new shirt to wear at the stake became a common feature at the burnings, a way of signaling support for and honouring the victim, as though he were being dressed as a bridegroom for a wedding." Also, the ceremonial donning of the shirt of flame could be seen as similar to the priest donning his vestments, thus subverting Catholic ritual. "...and so the martyr might pray over and kiss the shirt before putting it on... underlining their oneness with Christ and the fact they were willing to die..." [7] He based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible, as noted by the following quote from a speech to parliament delivered in 1610 as James I of England: The new analysis shows a modest level of Saxon DNA, suggesting that the native British populations lived alongside each other and intermingled with the Anglo Saxons to become the English. In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted certain earthly powers to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. The doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament or pope) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. Thus, the monarch is not subject to the will of the people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It follows that only divine authority can judge a monarch, and that any attempt to depose, dethrone, resist or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It does not imply that their power is absolute. [1] :858The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr"; [23] it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II of England made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king. Baer, Robert V. Power & Freedom: Political Thought and Constitutional Politics in the United States and Argentina ProQuest, 2008 ISBN 0549745106 (pp. 70–71) Be glad that you live in one of the most beautiful lands in the world, and I mean the whole of the British Isles. You can keep the supposed "paradise" beaches, particularly those of the far east where you take your life in your hands walking across one on a sunny afternoon far more than you would walking through a run down estate on the darkest night. The controversy is highlighted by the instructions to the Israelites in the above-quoted passage, as well as the passages in 1 Samuel 8 and 12, concerning the dispute over kingship; and Perashat Shoftim. [5] It is from 1 Samuel 8 that the Jews receive mishpat ha-melech, the ius regium, or the law of kingship, and from this passage that Maimonides finally concludes that Judaism supports the institution of monarchy, stating that the Israelites had been given three commandments upon entering the land of Israel - to designate a king for themselves, to wipe out the memory of Amalek, and to build the Temple. [6] The Glorious Revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. This has led to the constitutional development of the Crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action. [23] Related concepts in other religions [ edit ]
The possibility of monarchy declining morally, overturning natural law, and degenerating into a tyranny oppressive of the general welfare was answered theologically with the Catholic concept of the spiritual superiority of the Pope (there is no "Catholic concept of extra-legal tyrannicide", as some falsely suppose, the same being expressly condemned by St Thomas Aquinas in chapter 7 of his De Regno). I hate that attitude. It's that attitude that we shouldn't be proud of our country, and that's been perpetrated and promoted by the right-on do-gooders for decades, that has created this vicious spiral. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, many philosophers, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suárez, propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. [13]However unsafe this country would appear to be for children these days, it still is nowhere near that of the US and some Latin countries where most children who are murdered are murdered by family members or close family friends. Werbos, Chris; Latham, Andrew (6 April 2020). "The Medieval Foundations of the Theory of Sovereignty". E-International Relations . Retrieved 20 August 2023.
that is, the commandment: "Honor your father ..." etc.,... but to be according to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of his goodwill ..." On the other hand, Aquinas forbade the overthrow of any morally, Christianly and spiritually legitimate king by his subjects. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was that if a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law, who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior, then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior, and thus all law was under constant threat. Although the later Roman Empire had developed the European concept of a divine regent in Late Antiquity, Adomnan of Iona provides one of the earliest written examples of a Western medieval concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish King Diarmait mac Cerbaill's assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch.The French Huguenot nobles and clergy, having rejected the pope and the Catholic Church, were left only with the supreme power of the king who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the countervailing power of the papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the state and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the king, and he became an absolute power. In theory, divine, natural, customary, and constitutional law still held sway over the king, but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the king could not be tried by any of his own courts. Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes (see the Investiture Controversy); after the Reformation he (or she if queen regnant) became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also. [27] Opposition [ edit ] Whatever the increase in the crime rate here, it still has a long way to go to catch up with most places in the US but we only hear about how New York is now safer than London.
Related:
Great Deal 
New Comment