The Divine Right of Kings and the French Revolution

When first reading this passage from King James I, I immediately thought of the Divine Right of Kings, and what he explained about it, in the context of the French Revolution. One of the main causes of the French Revolution was the people’s limited amount of power and equality held between the monarch and the rest of society. France was an absolute monarchy which ran in accordance to the Divine Right of Kings. Ironically, one of the major shifts which occurred during and after the French Revolution was the transition from a primary belief in religion to beliefs of science and rationality. Before the Revolution, however, society operated completely off of the structure of the Church, and religious status indicated and controlled everything about an individual’s life. That is why France functioned governmentally by an absolute monarchy; the Divine Right of Kings identifies a king as a god, representing divine powers and attributes, making the King the closest individual to god. The king was the highest religious official, therefore had the most, and all of the power to control France entirely. Logically, society would not rebel, as they too believed that religion defined every aspect of life. Therefore, they respected, obeyed, and followed the king as he was the closest one to god. He had the power to create or destroy, give life, send death, etc., which are all attributes of god which everyone throughout society attempted to obtain. But, they could not as the king’s power, authority, and life came from god himself, allowing him to have all the potential power at his hands, just like god does. Interestingly, in the second paragraph, King James I makes a profound distinguishing point as he draws the line between the two different types of kings. One king is elected by the people as their character and effectiveness serves for the law. The other king is appointed (assumedly by god) and set out on conquest to achieve civility and policy (law). King James I defines himself as the second type of king, as he is self-determined to obtain the reputation of a king who was careful to have his law observed by his governed people, and to hand over his governed and government to the king which will follow him in the order which he found and manipulated it. This is exactly what the people of France detested of regarding their governing structure, as the kings were merely a line of generations of the same family, because supposedly, their ancestor(s) were placed in such a position by god himself. The Divine Right of Kings hands over the right to govern to an individual whose ancestors were on a holier level than all others, therefore making them as holy, giving them the right to power. But, as France shifted from religion to rationality, the Divine Right of Kings did not apply to society or the government itself anymore, as it spoke of things considered incorrect, or irrelevant; the overthrowing of the absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings was a foreshadowing, in a way, of the way governments would be designed to function as today: for the people and of the people. Regardless, King James I states that kings have the power of god beside them, but to use such power without good reason, rationality, or unlawfully, they are betraying the very force which provides them with their power position. King James I, in a way, foresaw the French Revolution, and set an example for kings to follow him that even though the Divine Right of Kings appointed them as divine and godlike individuals, it does not give them the power to deprive their governed of their rights and humanity; kings should use their power and enlightenment with reason, rationality, good will, and lawfully. Clearly, Louis XVI didn’t get the message.