The Divine Rights Of King James I Essay

The Divine Rights Of King James I Essay
James I was king of England from March 24th 1603 till March 17th 1625 and wrote the "The Divine
Right of Kings" in 1609 he presented it to the English parliament. His goal was to resolve three
crucial issues: 1–parliamentary financial support for his estate, grievances of his subjects, and
uncertainties surrounding his intention to rule according to the country's ancient customs (common
law). James I first sought to establish the king's absolute right to rule, restating his belief in the
Divine Right of Kings. King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England in 1603. He
was the first monarch of the House of Stewart (or Stuart) and succeeded Queen Elizabeth I, the last
monarch of the House of Tudor. James was the son of Mary, Queen of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
His views in his time lead to an entrenchment on the views of the document in his society. The
common people strongly believed in his God chosen ability to rule, however soon people started to
see flaws in the ideology. Whenever the king made mistakes, mishaps or the nation was heading
down a dark road questions started to appear. Even though James put countless hours and days into
abolishing the questioning it persisted. Having a monarchy added a sense of stability and security in
the nation because the people always knew there would be another leader and that he/she was God
chosen. This idea was heavily criticized because it challenged the Magna Carta. James I basically
went fully against that piece of legislature and stated that kings are above the law and that the rule
of law should not and does not apply to them. The long term effects of this are also very impactful.
This ideology was created by James I but it was carried on by "The Sun King" Louis XIV, and it
was fully abolished in 1688–89 aka the "Glorious Revolution". James I began his speeches in 1609
so therefore this theory lasted roughly 90 years (1689–1609=80). This theory was very important to
all of Europe because well even if you were a king and didn't believe in the theory you would still
want to promote it because it would place you above the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Divine Rights Of Kings In The Epic Of Gilgamesh
In ancient times, when humans are in the infant stage of development of human history, humans'
understandings of nature are just only based in their imagination. While facing the powerful forces
of nature, people are aware of their own strength is pretty small, and their fate is controlled by an
invisible power–– they called this unknown force "god". With the passage of time, people seem to
foresee the possibility of overcoming nature, and they begin to look forward to their own peers, a
powerful figure, to complete the great cause of beating nature. The emergence of priests shows the
beginning of religion. When it comes to priest, the first thing come up with the most people's mind
is "The divine right of Kings" in British, which refers to the god empowers Kings with the rights to
manage citizens. Date back to the era of Babylon, the time of the first written form of literature, The
Epic of Gilgamesh, "The divine right of Kings" had already loomed. In The Epic of Gilgamesh,
Gilgamesh, the great king of Urk in the history, had decreed density of king. He had "given the
supreme power over people, victory form with no fugitive returns, in forays and assaults from which
there is no going back."( ,24) But at the same time, the right of king was also retracted by gods.
After Gilgamesh's royal friend Enkidu died, he placed his hope on the everlasting life. In his journey
of pursuing everlasting life, even he found the mysterious plant that enable human to restore lost
youth

What Is Hobbes True Conceptualization Of Punishment?
Introduction
At first glance, Hobbes' theory of rule within his artificial commonwealth appears deceptively
simple: an omnipotent, totalitarian sovereign who compels absolute obedience through the use of
terror, fear, and the constant threat of violence. Nothing illustrates this apparent simplicity more
aptly than the common–held notion of the sovereign as the dispenser of cruel and malevolent
punishment. However, upon closer examination of Hobbes' views on the purpose and character of
punishment, this one–dimensional understanding of sovereign rule becomes rather problematic.
By demonstrating the rights–based (semi–liberal) nature of Hobbes's punishment theory, this paper
will present a reconceptualization of the sovereign and his relationship ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It is not some indulgent means by which the sovereign can vent passions of anger or vengeance.
Rather, punishment is a necessary function of the Sovereign, but it is clearly not ideal.
➢ According to Holmes (as cited in Van Mill 2002), "Hobbes stressed the self–defeating character
of attempts to change people's minds by brutal means." o "transgression of the Law"
➢ It is interesting to note that Hobbes emphasizes "transgression of the law" rather than sovereign
prerogative. This runs counter to most individual's understandings of the Sovereign as a despot,
ruling according to his present whim rather than an established system of laws. Hobbes appears to
place more weight on adherence to clearly promulgated laws than on the "omnipotent will" of the
sovereign. (Potential Argument for Legal positivism)
➢ Cattaneo asserts that, "If 'absolutism' means a system of government founded essentially on
arbitrary rule, then Hobbes's conception, primarily concerned with assuring security and upholding
the authority of the law duly promulgated by the sovereign in clear, unequivocal terms, does not
favor absolutism" (Hobbes Studies pg. 276). o "to the end that the will of men may thereby be better
disposed to

English Bill Of Rights Dbq
The end of the 1700s started age of revolution. Many countries, like France were revolting against
their government. This era totally annihilated the thought of the divine right of kings, which was
"the doctrine that kings and queens have a God given right to rule and that rebellion against them is
a sin"(Dictionary.com). Some reasons for the end of the divine right of kings was the philosophers,
the revolutions and the protestant reformation. The philosophers of the enlightenment were
investigating the concept that all humans are free and equal, that they should have rights and should
have a say in government. In addition, there were a number of documents that took a lot of power
from the king . Also the revolutions of this ear were of great importance.
Some of the important philosophers ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Magna Carta was signed by king john in 1215. Essentially, it said that the king had to fallow the
laws of the land and not to abuse his power. Also it gave the people many right they didn't have
before. Next the English Bill of right, "creates separation of powers, limits the powers of the king
and queen, enhances the democratic election and bolsters freedom of speech"(Study.com). Then the
declaration of the rights of man and citizen is considered on of the most important document the
French revolution. It gives rights, like freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The declaration of
Independence announced that America is free and separate from England and is no longer under the
authority of England king. it also says that all men a free and equal and have unalienable rights.
Additionally, the bill of rights gives all Americans rights, for example, freedom of speech, assembly,
press, religion and the right to bear

What Is The Divine Right Of Kings
Divine right theory, or the divine right of kings, is a religio–political doctrine that validated the
sovereign rule of various monarchs, primarily European, from the late sixteenth century up until the
late eighteenth century. According to the theory, the monarch derives their legitimacy and right to
rule solely from their birth–such authority is transmitted to a ruler from their ancestors, who claimed
their power was appointed directly to their lineage by God. This theory asserts that because the right
to rule is divinely sanctioned, the monarch is subject to no other authority besides that of God, and
therefore not subject to any earthly rule. This also ensured the unquestionable obedience of the
monarch's subjects, because to actively

Inventing The People Morgan Analysis
In Inventing the People, Morgan initially makes a radical claim that the entire foundation upon
which American democracy was built, is a fiction. What follows is a three–hundred–page analysis
of what Morgan calls political fictions. These fictions have been developed throughout our history,
most notably, the fictions of the divine right of kings and the sovereignty of the people.
Systematically, Morgan breaks down these fictions to their root, unveiling the shaky basis upon
which they lie, and then revealing all of the pitfalls inherent in their actual realization, to indicate
the modified form of these political fictions that we know today. Morgan argues that the problem
with political fictions is that they have become so ingrained in societal thought that we are ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Thus, he begins with an example he claims Americans today can all understand as an obvious
fiction, the political fiction developed during the reign of James I (1603–1625): the divine right of
kings. While it may seem clear to Americans today that such an idea was not entirely sound, English
citizens at the time fell victim to the classic logic inherent in political fictions, the idea that, the
fiction has always been real and is simply a part of society as we know it. However, our ability to
discern fact from fiction in the case of the divine right of kings serves Morgan's point that a political
fiction is also present today, yet we are now the ones falling victim to the fiction. In the transition
from the fiction of divine right to that of popular sovereignty, one

Protestant Reformation Research Paper
To start off this essay i will talk about the protestant reformation. The protestant reformation was
one of many violent times because of the very few wars.The Protestant Reformation was a
breakdown of authority and power of the Catholic Church. This breakdown happened because of the
Black Plague, Renaissance, etc. (humanism and secularism). One of the biggest impacts this
breakdown had on the community was that wars erupted in Europe between the Catholics and
Protestants.
An absolute monarch is a king or queen who believes that all of the power rests in their hands.
There is no limit to their power. You are most likely to just be born into this family of Monarchs.
King Philip II came up with this theory. The Monarchs wanted to build bigger armies but couldn't
because they didn't have the money so the taxes were raised.
A divine right is the idea that God created the monarchy. The monarch is God's representative on
Earth. This means this is God's way of touching people while being in an unknown location. The
absolute monarch answers only to God, not to their subjects.
Absolute power + Theory ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many started to realize how unfair it was to work while the King was sitting there gathering the
money. Many disagreed with the church and turned against it. This started to happen because of
Martin Luther. He wrote the 95 theses and put it up on the church door. The King found him and put
him in the dungeon. Luther finally escaped from the underground chamber. He lived continuously
among the community but wearing a disguise. The king put up rewards for people to find him but
realized that he was right. The Catholic Church wasn't fair. The disagreed with the king and then all
went on strike. They protested and the king no longer could control him. This helped the community
get a few things they wanted so that the Catholic Church could be

Essay Absolute Monarchism
The prevailing government of Europe from 1900–century back was absolute monarchism, this form
of government worked very well considering the belief of all people in god and the teaching.
Monarchist use this belief to justify this rule in. if they could make the people believe that they were
ordained position by god then they had no worries because the people belief in god was so
prevailing that it was not mentionable in private to go against it. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the
ideal rules to use this type of ruling. Napoleon and Louis XIV were the same type of rulers by using
the divine right monarchy to control the people of their country, which was France. Napoleon and
Louis way of ruling and other similarity were so alike that they ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
"I gave orders to the four Secretaries of state no longer to sign anything whatsoever without
speaking to me: likewise to the controller, and that he should authorize nothing as regards finance
without its being registered in a book which must remain with me(R 17). Louis wrote this to his
heirs as advice on how to rule. He kept everyone under a close eye, he could not trust. . He even
went as far as to invaded the postal system "The king was informed of what was passing for many
years before anybody knew it was that of opening letters"(R 24). If the letter say anything against
the king or France the writer of the letter were exiled without even trial.
: "In fact Napoleon crowned himself emperor since he did no recognize the pope's authority as
superior to his own"(R 138). Napoleon would not even let the pope honor him as the king of France.
It was like he was saying that I am more divine than you, I am more superior to god than you
because I am the divine ruler. Appropriately, Napoleon found divine sanction for his power. The
imperial Catechism made the people believe that Napoleon was the divine ruler. Peists use to ask the
commoners "What are the duties of Christians towards those who govern them and what in
Particular are our duties towards Napoleon I, our emperor"(R 142). . The Christians would answer, "
Christians owe to the princes who govern them, and we in particular owe to Napoleon I, our
emperor,

Bishop Jacques Boussuet: The Divine Right Of King
There are a lot of theories of government but in the sixteenth century they used a specific theory that
involves religion. In the medieval time period the divine right theory was employed. The theory that
God chose kings and gave kings the right to rule. Back then people did not have much knowledge
but were really religious, they believed in God and rely on him for the answer of everything. When
it came to the king saying he was chosen by God, citizens did not argue because it seemed
reasonable. The king did not need approval of anyone and even if the king wasn't a good king it did
not matter because they believed that he had the authority to rule by God. The king was viewed as
"shadow of God on earth". The practice of the Divine Right of Kings has been applied by many
monarchs.
Bishop Jacques Boussuet (1627–1704) believed "that government was divinely ordained so that
humans could live in an organized society" (Spielvogel). He believed that in the divine right theory
would help society function together. Expressed his ideas in his book politics taken from the very
words of scripture. Believed that God chose a king and his authority is absolute. Therefore no one
can ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At thirteenth months old he was crowned King of Scotland. His mother was removed from her
position by George Buchanan. George Buchanan then started to tutor James with his own principles
that kings derive their authority from their subjects. James did not agree with those principles, but
was interested in the divine right of kings. Finished his education at the age of twelve and spoke
many languages. Became king in 1603 of England and believed. He believed that he was chosen by
God to be king and if anyone question him then he was questioning God too. Had trouble gaining
acceptance in the English society. Stressed heredity rights. His son Charles I also had beliefs in the
Divine right of

The Roman Empire
However, numerous aspects allowed the Byzantine Empire to stay in power for a 1000 years after
the end of the Roman Empire; primarily the emperors were focused on the political, culture and
economic affairs from top to bottom. This triangle strategy of the empire backed by a greater
strategic communication and well–designed political warfare against their rivals enabled the empire
to stay stable and secure. There are also few other internal and external factors and advantages.
Including some great permanent resource such as Anatolia for workforce and Egypt for cash. The
regional stability was also a significant factor and the Persia, and the Islamic caliphates have not
significantly challenged the emperors. There was also some natural and geographic advantages,
such as shorter borders and few disputes over the land and boundaries. The active Macedonians
military and the Thema system militias were an essential factor in the security. But, the role of
leadership should not be ignored in the empire, and most of the Byzantine emperors were either
smart or had the brightest around them. Martine Luther's challenge of the Catholic Church's through
written theses was mostly a political warfare through existing means and tools. Of course, he is one
of the most influential figures in the history of West, his works even influenced eastern scholars and
religious leaders. At the, while the social media was not a top of discussions and any such
technology has not existed, but he

The Restoration of Moral Order in Hamlet
The Restoration of Moral Order in Hamlet
The fabric of every society relies on a set of laws, morals and ethics. When these aspects of a "good
society" are corrupted, disorder ensues. A play which examines the result of a corrupted state is
William Shakespeare's play Hamlet. The audience immediately witnesses the corrupted nature of the
play when early on in the story a character observes, " Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
(1.4. 99) In the Elizabethan era it was believed the king was directly appointed by God. This is
known as the divine right of kings. When the divine order of kings is broken by unlawful means, the
natural order is ruined, and this leads to a state if corruption. The moral order is upset when the
king, Old ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Upon taking over Denmark, Fortinbras ensures that Hamlet's honorability is recognized, by giving
him a royal burial. Once noticing that Hamlet dead, Fortinbras instructs,
"Let four captains
Bear Hamlet like a soldiers to the stage,
For he was likely, had he been put on,
To have proved most royally. And for his passage,
The soldiers' music and the rites of war
Speak loudly for him." (5. 2. 419–424)
A proper burial is significant because Hamlet is recognized as a hero, rather then an insane killer.
The audience feels pathos for Hamlet because of all the struggles he has been through, and also
because it seems as if everyone was plotting against him. The audience feels relieved that Hamlet,
who is one of the only good characters, is remembered as a hero, rather then forgotten by Fortinbras.
Therefore Justice for the audience is served because Hamlet is given a royal burial at the conclusion
of the play, and is remembered as a hero. This leads to moral order further being resorted in the play.
In order for justice to be fully served, not only must the audience get what they want, but also
justice must be served in the play, amongst the character. Therefore all the evil, and corrupted
characters must be brought to justice for the wrongful deeds that they carried out throughout the

play. In the final duel scene, justice is finally complete when Claudius is poisoned by Hamlet.
Claudius is the most corrupt, and evil character

Bishop Bossuet's True Law Of Free Monarchies
In many civilizations throughout history the responsibility of governing has fallen on a variety of
governing bodies from kings to presidents to parliaments. What many of these governments lacked
was a focus on God and his plan for governing. During the period known as the 'Age of Absolutism'
(1650–1776), a great struggle waged throughout Europe between the pursuit to see monarchs rise to
power, as in France, and those who sought to make a shift toward representative government, as in
England. Those who believed in a king's absolute power and divine right to rule were crucial to
France's development of absolutism, while innovators like John Locke steered England away from
this tendency and toward representative government.
Spurred on by radical ideas, absolutism took hold in France. Bishop Bossuet was one such idealist.
In Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture, Bossuet argues that a king is divinely
chosen and therefore should have superiority over the church, including the Pope. He explains how
the king and his authority are "sacred" and divine. He goes on to express ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
He believed very strongly in a king's divine right to rule. In True Law of Free Monarchies, he uses
scripture to back his ideas. He also refers to the king as being "a naturall Father" with "fatherly
duties of caring for his subjects. Though he was never able to really secure an absolutist rule, some
shared his ideas. Philosopher Robert Filmer wrote "I cannot find anyone place or text in the Bible
where any power or commission is given to a people either to govern themselves, or to choose
themselves governors, or to alter the manner of government at their pleasure." James' own son,
Charles I, also tried to implement absolutism by suspending Parliament and attempting to quell
those who opposed it. Attempts to implement an absolutist state in England ultimately failed and
limited monarchy and, in addition, representative government

Explain James Vi's Notion Of Witchcraft
James VI's notions of witchcraft are conditioned by his ideas about kingship to a certain extent,
however, it can be stated that James VI's notions of witchcraft are also fueled by other factors and
not just his ideas of kingship. James VI (1566–1625) held the Scottish throne for most of his life
1567–1625 and also the thrones of England and Ireland from 1603–1625. Whilst holding the
Scottish throne James wrote arguably his most famous work the ''Daemonologie''. It was in this
work he tackled the issue of witchcraft and dark magic, showing that he had an in–depth interest
with they particular topic, even much so that he considered himself an expert on the subject. This
essay will argue that James Vi's notions of witchcraft are mainly conditioned by his ideas of
kingship, however, James did also have a interest in the subject and his fear of a violent ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is the ideology that God places all monarchs in their position of power and that only he and no
earthly force can judge them. This ideology fueled James' interest and eventual significant
involvement in the North Berwick situation and also played a part when James became a force in
the Witch trials, all of which added to the eventual politicalization of Scottish witchcraft. It can be
stated that James ideas of the Divine Right of Kings and his notions of witchcraft are indefinitely
connected. This can be clearly seen in this statement '' ideology goes the Scottish witch–hunt
coincided exactly with the period spanned by the doctrines of the divine right of kings'' . This
statement shows that at this period of time the witch hunts and the political idea of the divine right
of kings were intertwined in James' notions of witchcraft. James belief was that as practicing
Withcraft was considered a satanic ritual this was an incredibly serious issue. The belief within the
ideology of the Divine Right of Kings is that an attack on the king is also an attack on

Impact Of The Age Of Absolutism
In the history of Europe, 17th and the beginning of 18th century is called the age of absolutism.
Absolutism was the age which monarchs were in the peak of their power. Monarchy, coming from
the Latin mono, meaning one, and absolute, meaning only, meant absolute and full power. Kings
believed they had the "divine right" and their position was given by God. There were many different
ideas and responses to Absolutism. We must keep in mind that the age of Enlightenment came right
after, which really shows us how people really felt towards the matter. Looking from today's view,
one cannot agree with the idea of being ruled with an absolute monarchy, for they have always
caused a rebellion and is a violation of personal rights. To understand why this matter had different
responses, we should look at the different thinkers of the time.
Different great thinkers had different opinions, and this can be explained with their personal outlook
and experiences. I will try to analyze John Locke's Second Treatise of Government, which was
published around 1689, (around a year after the Glorious Revolution) for it was so influential that
the American Declaration of Independence had ideas from it. Locke lived from 1634 to 1702 and
wrote many essays on ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
First of all it is interesting that he English historian Peter Laslett in the 20th century claimed that
Locke actually wrote the both treatise in 1679, and even revised it until 1683. This allegation does
not change in the fact it is justifying the revolution, it also makes it a call for a revolution. We know
that his first treatise was actually written in response to Robert Filmer's Patriarcha, which supported
the divine right of kings. Locke dismissed this by saying Filmer believes that every man is born
naturally slaves to chosen kings. Yet the second and more famous one was kind of a political
proposal to worlds more modern countries like England, a solution for the

Absolutism Essay 9
"God is holiness itself, goodness itself, and the power itself. In these things lies the majesty of God.
In the image of these things lies the majesty of the prince."
The thesis statement above by Jacques–Benigne Bossuet clearly illustrates the concept or theory of
the ‘Divine Right of Kings' which basically argues that certain kings ruled because they were
chosen (by God) to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God respecting
only the fundamental laws. Because the monarch ruled with "absolute" or unshared power, the term
‘absolutism' came about. These kings are said to rule absolutely by the will of God. To oppose the
king was equivalent to a rebellion against God. The king therefore was not to be ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
We have learned from the mistakes and put to memory and into practice the lessons obtained. With
regards to the statement "God is holiness itself, goodness itself, and the power itself. In these things
lies the majesty of God. In the image of these things lies the majesty of the prince", I believe that its
essence is in great part true. It's embodiment in the theory of the divine right of kings in absolutism
however is in many ways as stated in the body of this paper is a subject for scrutiny and abuse. And
so let it be our aim, our unending quest to continue to strive and achieve to attain a semblance of
what it is to be truly in the image of

Charles I The Divine Right Of King
This essay will focus on the actions of King Charles I and how his decisions impacted on each of his
three kingdoms, England, Scotland and Ireland during the years 1638 – 1642. It will look at the
relationships and retrospectively the breakdown of relations within each of these kingdoms. Charles
inherited three very different Kingdoms from his father King James I in 1625. Ireland was
predominantly Catholic apart from the few Protestants that James had planted on Irish soil. England
was Anglican, although many known as puritans felt that the Anglican Church was not protestant
enough, possibly due to Charles marriage alliance with the French Princess Henrietta Maria, who
was openly Catholic and was allowed to publicly practice her religion. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Firstly, his belief in "the Divine Right of Kings" was seen by many of his subjects as an attempt by
the king to gain absolute power. The second was his wish to push his ideal religious views in
England; his idea to reintroduce bishops to govern the Church of Scotland angered the Scots. The
fact that he was married to a Catholic meant that many in his kingdoms felt he was seeking to revert
to Catholicism; making him extremely unpopular with many of his subjects. The conflict was
whether the monarch was trying to dictate the religion of individuals. While the monarch wanted to
exercise authority by controlling the religion of the land, most people wished to make personal
choices on matters of faith. They felt that Charles was denying them the right of worship.Charles
managed to provoke Parliament, by dissolving them and refusing to listen to sense. On the other
hand, Parliament sought independence from the monarch by establishing laws that empowered it.
Parliaments concern was about the King taking control of raise taxes without seeking Parliament's
approval. This troubled members of the House of Lords; they believed the monarch was
overstepping its mandate. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms was based on the sovereignty of
individual kingdoms. For instance, Ireland and Scotland were pleased with the domination of
England in most political matters, but they were not satisfied by the fact that their religious beliefs
were ignored.
Bibliography
Beaumond, H. (1884). Protestant deposition in Ireland,1641 p.227. In M. Hickson, Ireland in the
seventeenth Century or the Irish massacres of 1641–2, their causes and results (p. 191). London:
Longmans, Green and Co.
Henderson, A. (1638). The National Covenant. In N. Wilson, Scottish Historical Documents (pp.
199–200). Glasgow: G. Donaldson ([1970]

Machiavelli's Influence On The Government
more reserved to extend their range of influence over their own people and other neighboring
countries. The prevalence of capitalism, as Machiavelli argued for in the prince, changed the public
interest in public pursuit of power to private and self seeking interests, and allowed governments to
acquire more power from the voluntarily forfeited liberties of its citizens. Finally, the rise of the
"Rational Central Administration" marked a beginning of bureaucracy in the modern era. Code law
was valued over case law, allowing for uniformity and efficiency in the state's executive powers; the
collection of military nobles into the residence of nobility drew focus away from other courts, and
encouraged competition in dress and etiquette to impress the royalty, further ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Instead, Hume proposes sociological evolution of Natural Law. Since the world changes, and so too
do the people and groups living on it, it is only fitting that one looks to history for an understanding
of government's authority. Thus, through sociology, which Hume helped to pioneer, one can more
fully understand the right to govern where an incomplete understanding of God or incomprehensive
survey of consent fall

King James and the Great Chain of Being in Macbeth
MaryAlice Peng Mrs. Frindell Honors English, 3rd period December 2, 2010 King James and the
Great Chain of Being in Macbeth Upon the death of beloved Queen Elizabeth in England, her
cousin James I was announced the new king of England. As a Catholic from the rival nation
Scotland, King James I was inherently distrusted by his Anglican subjects, and his guarded, haughty
personality only further decreased his popularity (Matthew). King James was also known for his
strong belief in the Divine Right of Kings, in which the king is second only to God (Matthew).
However, his greatest disadvantage was that he was previously Catholic; the English were never
truly confident in his conversion to the Anglican Church (Matthew). Skeptical, ... Show more
She was the character that finally convinced Macbeth to kill Duncan in his own castle, proclaiming
"O, never shall sun that morrow see!" (1.6.71–72). She encouraged such betraying behavior as a
reaction to Macbeth's letter about being predicted as the next king of Scotland. Eager to become
queen, Lady Macbeth completely disregarded the inner politics of Scotland, her and Macbeth's
morals, the sacred Great Chain of Being, and the Divine Right of Kings. She continues to violate the
Chain as she reverses gender roles with Macbeth, verbally abusing him as only a man was allowed
to do to a woman (so it was believed then). She consistently degrades Macbeth by calling him a
woman, comparing his explanations to "a woman's story at a winter's fire, authorized by her
grandma" (3.4.78–79). The common belief in 17th century England was that women were far below
men on the social ranking scale, so Lady Macbeth's numerous insults are completely out of line.
Eventually she is punished for her interruption in the Great Chain of Being as she becomes insane
from guilt. At last, the murder of Duncan comes back to haunt her, causing her to imagine blood on
her hands and cry "Out, damned, spot, out, I say!" (5.1.37). In the end, all of her past actions catch
up with her and she commits suicide as she wrestles with the burning question, "What, will these
hands ne'er be clean?" (5.1.45). Shakespeare justly writes in her demise as she is

How Did Absolutism Change During The 17th Century?
The monarchical rule of England and France changed completely during the 17th century.
Absolutism existed in most of the western countries including England and France but during the
rule of Charles I and King Louis XIV, both the countries went in different political directions. There
were many factors that were responsible for this including the religious and the financial instabilities
of the countries. In England, constitutional monarchy was being followed which had a policy of
religious toleration. On the other hand, France was going in the complete opposite direction of
making absolutism more extreme. King Louis XIV became the divine king and prohibited the
practice of other religions except Catholicism.
The two countries differed in their religious, financial, institutional and social policies. Each country
chose their specific way of dealing with certain areas of concerns like political problems, social
status and most importantly ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hobbes suggests that Absolutism is the best solution to the problem because a single absolute ruler
would set things right for the people who are not capable of keeping their power within their limits.
On the other hand, Locke's suggests a constitutional monarchy because that is the best way the
people would be given justice. According to him all men are equal and given one person all the
power to make laws is not right. He suggests that there should be a government that can govern the
problems of the people. Bossuet has a totally different and religious view about the king. According
to him, the King is the divine ruler appointed by God and that he has all the rights to make laws and
amend them as he wishes and nobody can go against him. This power is stemmed to him by God
and thus Divine Right Absolutism is the best solution to the

Divine Right Rule
If I was a ruler in the eighteenth century, I would claim my reign by Divine Right of Kings because
it is the most advantageous of the three. Divine right of kings is the idea that the power of the king
or queen derives from God, not the people. This is advantageous because the ruler would have
absolute power with little to no consequences. In addition, any political dissent against authority
figure would be viewed as an insurrection against God because only God can appoint ruler to
govern. Consequently, power is concentrated on a single individual with little resistance. However, a
possible downside to divine right of kings is that a high religious figure can challenge my authority,
claiming that God has revoked my right as ruler. This can lead to rebellion. However, religion and
government have a history of colluding with each other in order keep their power. ... Show more
It states that emperors were given power by the heaven to rule as long as they are just ruler. This is
similar to Divine Right of Kings because power derives from cosmic source. Unlike Divine Right of
Kings, the Mandate of Heaven states that the person in power could be overthrown if they lose the
mandate. Losing the mandate can be interpreted as natural disasters like famine, drought, or
diseases. This can lead to revolt. Consequently, the Mandate of Heaven is not as desired as Divine
Right of Kings if I was a ruler. The social contract is an agreement between the ruler and the subject.
It states that the subjects give up a portion of their rights in order to be ruled providing that the
person in charge does not abuse his power. The benefit to the social contract is that violence is not
the main conclusion to if the people are not happy. However, as a ruler from the 18th century the
most obvious downside is that the power gained from social contract is not as large compared to
Divine Right of Kings or Mandate of

Absolutism During The Period Of The Enlightenment
As Plato once wrote, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This concept can apply to many ideas,
other than beauty. How similar governments are run is a good example of how something could be
fundamentally the same, but in reality very different. Absolutism during the period of the
Enlightenment can show many differences, even though the concept is the same. Absolutism is the
form of government where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual. In an absolute
monarchy, the monarch exhibits and exercises unrestrained, supreme power over the people. A
strong centralized government is the key to the success of an absolute monarchy. Monarchs could
create a strong government in their hands through various means, but all monarchs exercised the
four characteristics of an absolute monarch no matter what they did to keep their country under
control, but still powerful. The methods of exercising the four characteristics of absolutism had
many similarities and differences. The contemporary monarchs, King Louis XIV of France and Tsar
Peter the Great of Russia, display the similarities and differences that are demonstrated between
absolute monarchs. The similarities and differences in the four characteristics of an absolute
monarchy, divine right, skilled administration, control of the economy, and a professional army, are
good examples of how something can differ in practise, but still be fundamentally similar. Divine
right is characterized by the belief that the authority of

Thomas Hobbes Despotism
After attending the press conference on January 18, 1783 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Nine
political philosophers advocated their views on the best form of government. They have reached a
consensus. The most focal being Thomas Hobbes' views on the relationship of the governed and the
authority, King Louis's stance on an absolute ruler, and William Laud's premise of religious
applications in government. Therefore, the best form of government is one of an absolute sovereign.
Thomas Hobbes promoted despotism in which the common man is, by all means, submissive to the
unquestionable decision maker. For instance, he claims that men are selfish in their natural state.
Hobbes emphasizes that "The condition of man... is a condition of war of everyone against
everyone." This freedom spurs chaos and insecurity. This leads us to his "Social Contract" theory.
Hobbes argues that people should surrender their rights that limit another's to the governing body in
exchange for security. In other words, since men are inherently driven to act by their wants, a tacit
agreement between men and the monarch is made to shield them from their wickedness. Lastly,
Hobbes states that a division of power will cause internal conflict within government. To put it in
another way, there will always be debate in compromise. Therefore, the nation will ... Show more
He thoroughly believed in the divine right of kings. Likewise, if you didn't, you were a bad
christian. Laud also supported the principles of the Book of Common Prayer which supported
obedience to god. Nonetheless, Laud voiced for religious uniformity. He feared that the church
would lose its influence. To infer, Laud suggested to solely rely on the teachings of the anglican
church, thereby increasing the influence of the church and the king. Since the king was a prophet
from god, he therefore should be the ruler. Essentially, if the common people revolt, they were
straying away from

Absolutism And King Louis XIV
Absolutism was an idea in which a ruler had an unlimited power and authority in the state in which
he ruled . One of the most well known rulers who practiced absolutism was King Louis XIV who
declared: "I am the state" . King Louis XIV believed that he deserved absolute power, so his
decisions were not to be challenged by anyone. Divine right was the entitlement that a king was
given in his position by a higher power. Absolutism was based on the foundation that God granted
monarchs earthly power to rule, and that only God gave them there power so that they could spread
his will here on earth . This meant that rulers could validate any of their rules by calling themselves
the promoters for God's will and punishing all those who defied their

Divine Law In Protestant Countries
The divine law was an idea, which is believed since the middle Ages in Europe.
Kings claimed that they had been chosen by God and were his representatives on earth pore so only
had to look up to God for their actions. This was called the divine right of kings.
Therefore, the kings had absolute power and exercised as wanted.
The same right became that anyone who wanted to depose a king or limit his powers went against
the will of God, which meant sacrilege
In Protestant countries, the idea of the divine right of kings started very strong but tends to disappear
even faster than in Catholic countries where it had never been fully adopted to start.
In Protestant countries it was very difficult to question the authority of the pope but quickly

Divine Justice In King Lear And Antigone
In and around 441 BC, the idea of divine justice was challenged in the work of Antigone, when she
battles Creon to establish a predominant theme of God versus man. During the Elizabethan era/Pre–
Christian world, divine justice was a major concept in King Lear because religion played a
substantial role in everyday life. Divine justice is belief that a higher power has all the answers to
life's questions, and that good triumphs over evil. In the works of King Lear and Antigone divine
justice is a standard of living. Good does not triumph over evil throughout any of these works
especially without the honorable characters suffering equivalent demises as the wicked characters.
This then supports the concept that there is no such thing as divine ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The conditions resulting from "bias of nature" (Hermesmann 1–2) indicates that nature is uncaring
for humanity, and the possibility of there not being a just force to govern the world. Without
established social order, there cannot be any justice. Correspondingly, Lear, like anyone else, falls
victim to making several poor decisions. Most noticeably, the misjudgment of Cordelia's true
meaning behind her words. He does not recognize Cordelia's humble love amid the flattery, which
he so desperately craves. In the first act of the play, the darker aspect of how Lear views the
universe is revealed. He believes laws and traditions can be broken and defied without any fear of
consequences. Lear's fall from grace of an all–mighty king to an old broken man reveals this
breakdown of order. When Lear encounters Edgar, disguised as Poor Tom, during the storm, Lear
rips off his clothes symbolizing that "Unaccommodated man is no more than such a poor, bare,
unforked animal" (Shakespeare III.iv.113–115). The act of removing his clothes is symbolic because
of the breakdown of "Western Hierarchy" and "Societal order in general" (Spotswood 2). The
betrayal of Lear by his two oldest daughters, Goneril and Regan, prompts his rebirth. Lear's
horrendous condition is caused by the oblique amount of justice in the Gods. Lear cries out in
despair "Who is it that can tell me who I am" (Shakespeare I.iv. 226–237), after Goneril
reprimanded Lear; to which "Lear's

Ap Euro Dbq Absolute Monarchies
The 16th and 17th centuries were a powerful time for European monarchies. Absolutism had taken
hold, allowing Kings to have powerful rules over their states. This was due to the absolute
monarchies that had taken hold and the belief in a divine right that kept them there. This allowed the
countries under the rule of powerful monarchs to thrive and prosper. Absolute monarchies and the
belief in a divine right to rule made absolutism a period of prosperity in 16th and 17th century
Europe. Absolute monarchies helped to make Europe prosperous during this period. This type of
government gave the king complete power over his state, leaving the people of the state with little to
no influence in the government. This helped to control and keep peace within the country. In The
Prince, by Machiavelli, it is stated that,"... fear is accompanied by the dread of punishment, which
never relaxes"(Document A). A leader that provoked fear of punishment in his people was, in turn, a
strong and powerful leader. The fear of breaking the laws and rules of the state kept the people in
line, and, therefore, kept the country in a ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country
that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on
earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce
God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political
Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings
were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed
absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful
governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

How Did King James Replace The Bible?
In 1604 King James commissioned an English translation of the Bible. James wasn't doing this
solely because he was a devout Christian, but also because of ulterior motives. James planned to use
this Bible to enforce the Divine Right of Kings. He wanted this version to replace the Geneva Bible
because he believed that the margin notes show disrespect to kings. James also wanted to use this
translation to unite the Church of England and the Puritans who's fighting was threatening to tear
the country apart. In addition, he had many rules for the new translation such as the ecclesiastical
words are to be kept. In my personal opinion this rule was intended to retain the power in the
hierarchy because the word church was not to be translated to congregation.

Tartuffe, a Comedy by Molier
Tartuffe is one of the most famous comedies written by the French playwright Molière. The play
tells the story of a wealthy Frenchman named Orgon who takes in Tartuffe, a man who presents
himself to be religious and passionate but actually turns out to be a hypocrite. Despite his family's
warnings, Orgon completely turns his back on his family in order to protect Tartuffe, who betrays
him. During that time the play was first written and performed, many people, along with King Louis
XIV himself, enjoyed the play. However, to others it was seen as being critical of religion and the
church, which then lead to it being banned. In a political sense, Tartuffe serves as both an
endorsement and critique of the ideas of absolutism, divine right, ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In those times, religion was hard to separate from politics and other aspects. Tartuffe was able to
fool people by claiming to be a devout man of God. If this were to happen with the King's advisors,
it could cause corruption throughout many parts of the kingdom. Molière does believe that the King
should seek advice from others, but he warns that he should listen to many opinions and think
carefully before making a final decision.
The divine right theory claims that the monarchs are specially selected by God to rule the kingdom.
Consequently, the King is responsible for his own actions and decisions. However, God is the only
one who can make judgments. So even if the King rules unfairly, that does not permit the citizens to
rebel against his rule. Rather, it is up to God to handle it. In Tartuffe, Molière seems to praise the
King for his fairness and mercy by pardoning Orgon in the end. Due to his previous loyalty to the
throne, he returned Orgon's property to him and forgave him for hiding the papers. The wise King
also saw through Tartuffe's deception and hypocrisy and had him arrested. These events in the story
definitely show Molière's support for King Louis XIV, as he knew that abolitionism and divine right
were honest intentions to rule the kingdom fairly.
Also during this time period, an emphasis was placed on patriarchal family. God has ultimate
authority over all, as He is the true

Gilgamesh Kingship
Gilgamesh was the fifth king of the Uruk society, a city in the Sumerian society during early
Mesopotamia days. The kings in ancient Mesopotamia were worldly representatives of the gods and
Sumerians believed they had higher percentage of godliness. A Sumerian proverb asserted that a
man was like a shadow of the gods while the kings were a complete reflection of the gods (Abusch
& West, 2014). Duties and characteristics of Kingship The characteristics of kingship included
being the divine agent. The kings like Gilgamesh was refereed divine because people believed the
gods selected him and his duty was to do the will of the gods and therefore a divine agent. As divine
leader, the king had the divine responsibility of sleeping with the brides

Henry Iv And Henry V By William Shakespeare
In Henry IV and Henry V by Shakespeare, a father and son have diametrically different reigns as
king. While both kings are politically savvy and gain the favor of the people, only one, Henry V, has
the divine right of kings. The divine right of kings is the belief that power is instilled in them by
God and rebellion against them is considered a sin. The influence of divine intervention is shown
through the punishment and guilt of Henry IV and the success of Henry V. The rule of Henry IV
illustrates the fate of one who seizes a crown that is not rightfully his by divine ordinance: a reign
troubled with treason and uprisings. He does not have the right to rule because he has not obtained
the crown through the law of primogeniture and therefore lacks the divine power imparted on those
who gain the throne legitimately. Henry IV seems to have all of the right characteristics to be a
successful king; however, he comes to the throne as an illegitimate ruler with the responsibility of
the death of God's chosen king, Richard II, on his shoulders. These actions cause Henry IV to incur
the wrath of God against him and to have a reign plagued with conflict; his ambitiousness and
political intelligence cannot fight back against the divine punishment inflicted upon him. His divine
punishment dictates that he will have no peace in his rule. The instability of England when Henry
IV becomes king is foreshadowed by Carlisle: "In this seat of peace tumultuous wars / Shall kin
with kin and

Macbeth, By William Shakespeare Essay
Throughout the play Macbeth, written by William Shakespeare, there is a constant theme of
questioning what quantifies a good leader and what qualifies someone to lead. These questions,
however, are more easily posed than answered because they change immensely depending upon the
individual responding. Some follow the school of thought that a king should be selected based on
divine inheritance while others focus more holistically on a king who possesses good qualities that
would make them a worthy ruler. In Macbeth there are not many examples of decent leadership that
the reader can clearly grasp due to the political instability of the setting of the play: Scotland. King
Duncan, while presented in a more favorable light than Macbeth, was no angelic being or exemplary
ruler. On the other side of the sword, however, King Macbeth was presented as a bloody tyrant hell–
bent on putting his wishes above the desires and needs of the people of Scotland. When presented
with the few rulers that are shown throughout the play, King Duncan was a better ruler with his mild
temperament and placement of his country above self. While choosing what quantifies a respectable
king is arduous, it is simple to see that Macbeth was not a good ruler. In fact, he was quite the
opposite. Thus, based on contradicting Macbeth's faults, a good ruler is the physical embodiment of
God, maintains command over the nobles, and favors the interest of the country over their own. The
notion of leaders of

A Comparison Between Macbeth And The Bible
There are multiple connections between 'Macbeth' and the Bible, the strongest of which are seen in
the two books from the Bible, Genesis and 1 Samuel. 'Macbeth' takes the characters of Adam and
Eve from Genesis, and uses them as a basis for the two main characters of 'Macbeth', Macbeth and
Lady Macbeth. Just as Eve tempts Adam to go against the direct instruction of God, Lady Macbeth
convinces Macbeth to murder the king, Lady Macbeth and Eve are both seen as the temptress to
Macbeth and Adam, and they are punished equally in both stories, either by death, or expulsion
from their home with God. 1 Samuel demonstrates the origins of the Divine Right of Kings: that no
one was able to go against the King, for he was God's appointed one. 'Macbeth' takes it further and
demonstrates what happens to the one who does kill the King, that they bring upon themselves only
misery, and eventually death. 'Macbeth' and the Bible have numerous resemblances to each other,
indicating how Shakespeare used his Biblical knowledge, which was common in the Elizabethan
era, to influence his plays.
There is a strong connection between story lines of 'Macbeth' and Genesis chapter three. They both
have a man and a woman, who are associated with prominent individuals, Macbeth and Lady
Macbeth are associated with King Duncan, and Adam and Eve and in the Garden of Eden with God.
They hear of a way, or prophecy which could raise them to a higher position, either King, or equal
to God. In both instances, they

Allusions In Macbeth
By the divine right of kings, monarchs with blessed blood hold the right to complete reverence and
subservience from their subjects. In the time of William Shakespeare, and for hundreds of years
before, European monarchs justified their absolutist rules by reasoning God placed their bloodline
on the throne. Encyclopedia Britannica states that, in 1603, the art–loving James VI of Scotland
succeeded to the English throne (Mathew); according to Shakespeare Online, he brought
Shakespeare's acting troupe, the Chamberlain's Men, under his patronage and renamed them the
King's men (Mabillar 2000). Three years later in 1606, Shakespeare's tragedy, Macbeth, released.
Macbeth takes place in Shakespeare's version of monarchical eleventh century Scotland. In the play,
a war–hero thane–the titular Macbeth–hears a prophecy from three witches that he will assume the
crown of the good king Duncan. This spark ignites his ambition and drives him to regicide, insanity,
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Macbeth's murders weigh heavily on his conscience and begin to manifest as delusions and
paranoia. After Macbeth sees the ghost of his late friend Banquo, who he recently orchestrated the
murder of, he seeks out the witches for more information. When the witches show Macbeth the
future kings of Scotland, Macbeth notes, "some I see / That twofold balls and treble scepters carry"
(IV.i.129). The "twofold balls" and treble scepters are a reference to James I, who at the time
reigned over both Great Britain and Scotland. The two balls symbolize how James I rules over both
Scotland and England; the three scepters represent his kingship of the three independent states:
Scotland, England, and Ireland. The lineage of monarchs that reclaim the throne from the tyrant
Macbeth includes James I. This succession therefore implies James I is a rightful heir–unlike
Macbeth–and allows Shakespeare to express his support for the controversial

Our True Nationality Is Mankind
"Our true nationality is mankind." ― H.G. Wells
Today, the scourge of nationalism continues to infect humanity. Without doubt, in some circles,
nationalism is hotly debated. For most people, however, the concept of nationalism is rarely
questioned. In fact, it 's a foregone conclusion that people should love the nation in which they
reside. Some people even take great pride in the fact that they were arbitrarily born in a specific
geographical location. Unfortunately, like religion or capitalism, nationalism is alive and well in the
21st century.
Throughout the history of human civilization, people have been creating, critiquing and altering
institutions. For instance, people have been condemning religion for centuries, indeed millennia. Yet
the institution of religion still remains a dominant force in modern society. Without question,
religious institutions and practices have morphed, dare I say, evolved, over the centuries. But the
fundamental concept that human beings exist within an abstract framework of Gods, mythologies,
symbols, and so forth, still remains.
In short, it takes an extremely long time to change ideologies and practices. On the other hand, that
doesn 't mean conversations about such topics should be off–limits or discouraged. Quite the
contrary: such conversations are essential, especially today. As the legendary science fiction writer
Ursula K. Le Guin recently said, "We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the
divine right of

Theory Of Kingship In Macbeth
– Hasna Taha – 155667:– Kingship is basically holding the position and dignity of a sacred king and
having a legitimate power. Ever since decades, holding such position has fascinated millions of
people. Being king also had religious aspects, for he who held the position of a legitimate king was
known to be sacred and had divine rights. However, the theory of kingship was one of the aspects
adopted by William Shakespeare in two of his well–known plays Macbeth and Richard II. They are
both historical tragedies, focusing on the sacred position of the king and murdering the legitimate
king; Shakespeare's play Richard II was written during the maturity of Shakespeare. It revolves
around a young king who fails to meet his duties and repeats ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
It influence the illustrations of many mixtures of concepts such as love and war, politics and religion
way of rule and many aspects that reflects the era and the type of rule that happen in the old era of
England and Scotland " Very many wise and subtle theories as to Shakespeare's purpose in this
plays have been set forth by critics who engage in the task for him (Richard White, 1887). In
England and Scotland, the concept of a king's way to rule the people is by the divine right which is
mean in an easy language "the kings are ruling by the god word " The nature of kingship in William
Shakespeare's 1606 play Macbeth and 1595 Richard II reflects the theories through of the unnatural
events that occur following Macbeth's and Richard's illegitimate rise to the throne. These events are
shown in most of Shakespearean Tragedies works such as: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Macbeth, and
the Histories works such as : Richard II, King John, Henry V, and Henry VIII, and many and many
of Shakespeare works it shown the theory of king ship clearly in the same way of thoughts which
reflect the way of ruling in the early age in England and Scotland with all the striving for the
kingship between the royal families, and how that way of ruling created the new England we know,
Shakespeare in his works also mixed the love and war, the tragedies with the romance event's and
how

Versute Power In Thomas Paine's Common Sense By Thomas Paine
What gives a person the right to have absolute power in a country? How does the leader ensure they
are not opposed and that the people are fine with them having all of the power? The answer to both
of these questions is complex, but it can be summed up to two words, total control. When given the
power to lead a country, a leader, or governmental figure, is faced with the problem that in order to
actually lead they have to get the population they are ruling to listen. Different leaders use different
strategies to ensure the people follow the laws that they have established, some use force, beliefs, or
even popularity to their advantage. In the book, Common Sense by Thomas Paine, we learn about
how the British king used different types of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
When the belief regarding the Divine Right of Kings started to wane, the British king used loyalty
as an incentive to follow commands. Since a lot of the American colonists originally hailed from
Great Britain, many settlers felt loyal to their home country and its government. Great Britain
further strengthened this feeling of loyalty by providing the colonies with protection against enemy
countries. By using the colonist's loyalty to get them to adhere to the laws set forth by the crown, the
king was able to ensure that he had total control over the American settlers, at least for a while.
Eventually the settlers began to question the king's power over the colonies, due to unfair taxes, and
once again the king began to use a different strategy to maintain control over America, fear. Great
Britain was a very powerful country with a large army and since the settlers were resisting the king's
rule, war broke out. Even though war definitely instilled fear into the settlers, it also created
discourse and uncertainty about whether the colonies should succeed from Great Britain or simply
fight for fairer laws. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine depicts some of these insecurities,
"Jealousies will be always arising; insurrections will be constantly happening; and who will go forth
to quell them? Who will venture his life to reduce his own countrymen to a foreign

Sovereignty Essay
Sovereignty
Sovereignty refers to ultimate and absolute authority designated to either an individual or an
institutional body.
The term sovereignty could be contested due to the fact that there is no universally agreed
definition. Thomas Hobbes defined what he considered the basis of a political body as 'the most
high and perpetual.' (Hobbes, quoted in Heywood, 1997, p26.) This view has proved rather
simplistic. It fails to take into consideration the limitations on the sovereign. Bodin highlighted that
although sovereignty provided absolutism, there were restrictions such as natural laws. (Bodin
quoted in Heywood, 1997, p26). Offe supports this by explaining of international restrictions on ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The contested nature of sovereignty is summarised by David Held, who explains it 'no longer retains
the meaning that it had 50 years ago. The concept is premised upon a bounded territorial state
system, increasingly threatened by social and technological change.' (Bealey, Chapman, Sheehan,
1999, p323).
Sovereignty would be useful to a politics student as it is central to the political process. The concept
of sovereignty is interrelated to democracy, a key feature of Western politics, which in some form is
adopted throughout the world. Through understanding where ultimate authority resides in political
institutions, the features and key principles of democracy are analysed. Furthermore, through
revising sovereignty, it can be understood how it applies to non–democratic institutions such as
dictatorships or one party political regime. By studying sovereignty, a comparison of the contrasting
political regimes, (democracies and dictatorships) can be undertaken. Sovereignty, in this way is an
intrinsic part of the study of politics. The concept of sovereignty enables a student to explore one of
the political controversies of the C21st. On a European level, and to a degree on an international
level it is argued that national states have experience a decrease of sovereignty. This is due to some
political powers giving been

Essay on Shakespeare, Kingship, and the Chain of Being in...
Shakespeare, Kingship, and the Chain of Being in Macbeth
Shakespeare's play "Macbeth" is largely based upon the theme of kingship. "Macbeth" was written
for James the 1st, who would have been interested in kingship and believed in the "chain of being"
and the "divine right" of kings. The "chain of being" is the belief that everything is connected like a
chain, and is affected by anything above it. God was believed to be at the top of the chain, and the
King was believed to be the highest on earth. The "divine right" was the belief that rightful kings
were put there by God, and should not be removed. Shakespeare represents these with the prosperity
when Duncan is king and the unnaturalness and evil, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Also, in the morning, Lennox says, "the night has been unrulyâ€¦Lamentings heard I'th'air, strange
screams of deathâ€¦ Some say, the earth Was feverous and did shake". Nature itself has been
disturbed, as the King is the highest thing on earth in the chain of being, so when his place is broken
then everything below him is disturbed. Shakespeare reinforces the fact that kingship is given to the
king by God, when Macduff says, "Most sacrilegious murder hath broke ope The Lords anointed
temple". Even when Macbeth is trying to excuse his murder of the kings guards, he described
Duncan's body as "silver skin lac'd with his golden blood." Even Duncan's murderer gives his right
to the throne credit.
At the beginning of the play Macbeth is looked on in good light, due to the successful defeat of the
Norwegian invaders, God is on his side. After he murders Duncan, Macbeth took the throne. He has
taken the throne by evil means, and not by divine right so he should not be there and the chain of
being is broken. Shakespeare uses Macbeth's growing madness, nature's disturbance and Macbeth's
growing madness to show that he is not the rightful king. After he has murdered Duncan, Macbeth
loses the ability to sleep; this is a sign of evil. He says, "I heard a voice cry, "sleep no more:
Macbeth does murder sleep"". Shakespeare is emphasising the point that only

The Bible : The Links Between The Bible And Macbeth
There are many links between the Bible, and the story 'Macbeth' by William Shakespeare. The two
strongest ones are seen in Genesis, with Adam and Eve, and also in 1 Samuel, with the Divine right
of kings shown with King Saul and David. In Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve lines up right next
the characters of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, they have the same roles, which end up playing out in
the same order. In 1 Samuel, it shows the origins of the Divine right of kings and how no one can go
against the King, and in Macbeth is shows what does happen when Macbeth kill the King, and bring
darkness to himself. Both the Bible and 'Macbeth' have many links to each other which show that
Shakespeare wrote his plays to please his King, King James who wrote the King James version of
the Bible.
There is a very strong relationship between the characters Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, and from
Genesis, Adam and Eve. Both stories are about a man and a woman, who are in high positions or
with high up people, and get offered something better, but it would mean for them to do something
of dire consequence. Lady Macbeth convinces Macbeth to kill their king by threatening him. She
says, "How tender tis to love the babe that milks me: I would, while it was smiling in my face, Have
pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums, and dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you have
done to this". Lady Macbeth is saying that if Macbeth does not commit the murder, she will smash
her baby's brains on the wall.

The Divine Rights Of King James I Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Joyce Knight

More from Joyce Knight (17)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Divine Rights Of King James I Essay