Monarchy is a matter of divine, not human law

David Cameron appears to have achieved what Gordon Brown could not– consensus among the 16 Commonwealth countries of whom the Queenis Head of State that the laws of succession should be changed topermit first-born female children of an heir to the throne to takeprecedence over male children, and to allow heirs to the throne tomarry Catholics. This latter measure, albeit welcome, is hypocriticalwhile the law continues to prevent the Sovereign from being aCatholic. The case of James II amply demonstrates that the monarch’spersonal faith need not interfere in the exercise of his or her roleas Supreme Governor of the Church of England.


The first aspect of the reform of the succession laws could haveunforeseen consequences – a disputed succession, for instance,between the descendants of a son and daughter of an heir to thethrone, similar to the succession dispute in Spain in the nineteenthcentury. Far more important, however, and unlikely to be recognisedby politicians, is the fact that monarchy and the rules that governit are a matter of divine, not human law. In other words, monarchy isof divine institution and thus, whilst interacting with the politicallife of the nation, it is not a creation of man but of God. This isapparent in the Bible, where the prophet Samuel is informed by Godbeforehand of his choice of Saul as the first King of Israel (ISamuel 9:16). Although the appointment of Saul as king took place bymeans of a combination of election and acclamation (I Samuel 19:21),Saul was, ultimately, God’s choice.


Throughout the centuries, different nations have chosen theirkings in different ways and different laws have governed succession.The Kings of Poland were entirely elected while the monarchies ofFrance and Spain were governed by the strict Salic law that did notpermit any female succession at all. This can easily give rise to theimpression that kingship is a human institution; who the king happensto be is an arbitrary matter, derived from longstanding tradition anda set of laws that were in force at a particular time. The king, assource of law, was essential for the welfare of the state but who hewas did not ultimately matter. The conclusion of all such argumentsis that monarchy may once have served a useful purpose but that in amodern state a single human person is no longer required to be theorigin and guarantor of the law.


By the late Middle Ages the political consensus in Europe was thatthe legitimacy of kingship was intimately bound up with the defenceand patronage of the Church and, therefore, a king had to beChristian. Two views then emerged; the idea that kingship wasessentially grounded in Canon Law and could be conferred by the Pope,and the competing notion (foundational to the Reformation) thatkingship was a matter of divine law. If legitimacy is conferred bydefence of Christianity then the title is the English Kings issecure. When Alfred the Great defeated the Danes at Ethandun in 878he was the only English King still alive, and moreover England’sprincipal Christian leader. Alfred’s victory, and the fact that hewas the ‘last man standing’ among the Kings of the Heptarchy gavehim and his heirs an undisputed right to the kingship of England as awhole. The Divine Right of the direct successors of Alfred, the Houseof Stuart and their heirs, stems from Alfred’s status as God’schosen instrument to preserve Christianity in England. As the chosenone of God, the King is not merely a convenient political fiction whoserves a purpose in the state, but God’s direct representative andtherefore the Head of both Church and state.


An essential principal of monarchy is that there is never a timewhen the Sovereign is dead or his or her identity is doubtful.Kingship, like God’s eternity itself, transcends mortal life. It iscrucial, therefore, that the best means be found of identifying whois a King’s legitimate successor. The Salic Law, as the War of theSpanish Succession demonstrated, has the potential to create greatinstability if female heirs are passed over entirely. However, theEnglish law of succession in which male heirs are privileged butfemale heirs may inherit guarantees the greatest possible stability,in that it ensures as far as possible that the Crown remains in thesame family. Thus the House of Tudor was able to remain on the throneuntil 1603, when under Salic Law it would have died with Edward VI in1553. However, if female heirs had been allowed the same rights asmales then the crown could have passed into a bewildering variety ofdifferent royal houses.


Neither the Commonwealth Conference nor Parliament has the rightto re-make fundamental law concerning who is or is not the Sovereign– that is a matter for God alone. Monarchy is a matter of divine, not human law | The Jacobite Intelligencer: Jottings of a Jacobite Antiquary

I don't think so. Monarchy means rule by one. It is a human political arrangement. Whether power comes from God ultimately, is another question. Those who divinise the monarchy too much also tend to divinise their own nations. It's a problem in French and Russian traditionalism, one connected to modernity. It has not been a Spanish problem, historically.