How could absolute monarchs like King Louis XIV prove that they had the divine right of kings?
Wouldn't people question that claim? Who could prove that he really had the divine right?
2007-05-13 22:55:14 · 5 answers · asked by blubbablub 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
They never had to "prove" anything. Plus they had the support of the clergy. It was the nobility who gave the clergy the money they needed to survive. Certainly, it was not the poor. The church, therefore. knowing who buttered their bread, supported the nobility, not the poor. So the church passed on to its "flock" that kings and/or queens ruled by Divine right, and the poor accepted it!!
Chow!!
2007-05-14 05:07:11 · answer #1 · answered by No one 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The bishop or head of the church could say that the king did not have divine right. The only problem is that the king could then order that person or anyone who questions the king to death for questioning the king
2007-05-13 23:04:37 · answer #2 · answered by keith c 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They could not prove they had the divine right to rule. What they had were armies behind them and sometimes Churches behind them. If a few men objected to the divine right, what could they do? They were grossly out manned. So people accepted it because they were powerless to do otherwise.
2007-05-14 05:00:05 · answer #3 · answered by Rochelle C 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They were never question by their adherents during their time so their claim was absolutely right. Its the rule of majority that counts before and even until now. Thats why we have elections in the Republican governments to determine who has the right to the throne after the expiry date of his tenure.
2007-05-13 23:09:00 · answer #4 · answered by periclesundag 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the two the church and the king shown their appropriate to rule because of the fact they claimed they have been an device of God. Enlightenment meant they mandatory authentic credentials to rule, and that they could no longer do in spite of they needed on a whim, they mandatory rational motives for his or her habit. unexpectedly they had to respond to for the way they dealt with people, and that they had to apply authentic justice for authentic criminal acts, no longer purely because of the fact somebody indignant the the church or the king. It meant people might desire to whinge of ways they have been dealt with, and that persons had sovereign rights. additionally, if the church and king had no rational authority, it became achieveable to their holdings - what gave them the perfect to all that land and riches? of direction, enlightenment became achieveable to their means, riches, and their very existence. The church and king have been outraged because of the fact they have been narcissists unaccustomed to being questioned and claimed their God as installation their placed up, yet enlightenment referred to that they made a mockery of God.
2016-12-17 12:07:31 · answer #5 · answered by slagle 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋