The “Divine Right” of Kings is very much a late Protestant innovation. That said, monarchy is the only form of government really found in Scripture. The Old testament in particular is full of references to it, and the importance of respecting authority sanctified by God. This theme is also found in the Epistle to the Romans. Bad things happened to those who disrespected anointed Kings.
In many respect Christian theology is monarchist. After all we do not worship a divine President or Prime Minister. We worship the King of Kings. For many centuries it was accepted that earthly society should mirror the divine order. This was never accomplished with anything even approaching perfection, because humanity is flawed. But as K noted it was attempted, notably in the late (Eastern or Byzantine) Roman Empire. In the West something like it could be found in the very byzantine (pun intended) organization of the Holy Roman Empire. And of course the Papacy itself perhaps comes as close as any institution ever has to asserting an absolute divine mandate.
A strong argument could be made that classical monarchism is the best and most Christian form of government. Consider that with few exceptions almost all monarchs were limited in fact, if not always theory, in the exercise of their power. They were constrained by custom, the aristocracy who jealously guarded their prerogatives and the Church that enforced moral boundaries on the power of the state.
Provided he did not incite rebellion or sedition, he paid his taxes (which were a pittance compared to those in any modern democracy), did not openly attack the established church, and did not violate the laws common to every orderly society that protect persons and property; a man who lived in a monarchical state during or before the age of the ancien regime could easily spend his entire life without ever coming into contact with the government.
By contrast, the modern state, a product of the so called “Enlightenment” has been the source of every tyranny and state sponsored atrocity one can think of. The motto of the French Revolution is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” But liberty and egalitarianism are incompatible. And the French Revolution unleashed a river of blood letting that has not stopped to this very day.
Democracy is inherently antithetical to liberty since it establishes the power of any majority over any minority. And history has shown again and again that over time, any theoretical constraints on such power are eventually eroded. Indeed monarchists are often fond of saying that democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
So yes, with many caveats, I am a supporter of limited Sacramental Christian Monarchy. In fact one of the lesser sacraments (now sadly in disuse) of the Church is the rite of anointing for an Orthodox Monarch.
Very informed and well written response. I am in agreement, but to reference a right wing philosopher, Evola, we no longer occupy a traditional world. Custom has collapsed and so we have pretend monarchs like Barry who quite literally control everything.
Israel was led for 400 years by prophet and judges.
I agree completely. Welcome to the FreeRepublic; please stay with us.
I might add: a libertarian will find more in common with a monarchist than with a democrat, simply because the king owns rather than rents the national infrastructure.
Rather than debating monarchism vs. republicanism vs. democracy, I think that this is the secret of good government. A king or parliament that respects custom and the limits of its power will produce a good government. A king or parliament that does not produces tyranny.