The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity. And still kings did not rule as a "voice of the gods." Further, it was not until the early modern era (17th Century) that the notion became extensively used as a primarily political mechanism, i.e. for increasing the power of kings within centralized monarchies
Yes, as with many other religions, like Christianity. Before you go all ballistic, imagine how burning a witch looks to non-Christians. Looks a hell of a lot like a human sacrifice.
Or an execution. I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?
So, it was from the bottom up? . . . By Charlemagnes time?
So where did the power-base come from?
> The divine right of kings was a perversion of Christianity.
That's nice. But it existed and was religiously accepted for a millenium and a half anyway.
> I can tell you why human sacrifice is wrong. Can you tell me why witch burning is wrong?
Because it's murder.
> So where did the power-base come from?
Same power base of any king.
I heartily recommend that you try to find a copy of "Christian History," Issue 63 (Vol. XVIII, No. 3) from 1999. The entire issue is devoted to "A Severe Salvation: How the Vikings took up the faith."
If you think the conversion of Scandinavia was a bottom-up phenomenon, you're in for a surprise. Much of the rest of Europe was the same... the king tells you what religion you are.