Diferencia entre revisiones de «Derecho divino de los reyes»
Contenido eliminado Contenido añadido
Etiqueta: posible pruebas |
m Revertidos los cambios de 190.164.162.232 (disc.) a la última edición de PedroAcero76 Etiqueta: Reversión |
||
Línea 2:
La doctrina del '''derecho divino de los reyes''' reposa en la idea de que la autoridad de un rey para gobernar proviene de la [[voluntad divina|voluntad de la deidad]] del pueblo que gobierna, y no de ninguna [[autoridad]] temporal, ni siquiera de la [[voluntad]] de sus súbditos ni de ningún [[testamento]]. Elegido por Dios, un monarca solo es [[responsable]] ante él. La doctrina implica también que la deposición del rey o la restricción del poder y prerrogativas de la corona son actos contrarios a la voluntad de Dios. No obstante, la doctrina no es una [[teoría política]] concreta, sino más bien una aglomeración de ideas. Las limitaciones prácticas supusieron límites muy considerables sobre el poder político y la autoridad de los monarcas, y las prescripciones teóricas del Derecho divino rara vez se tradujeron literalmente en un [[absolutismo]] total.
== Absolutismo británico ==
En el caso británico, estas doctrinas se asocian estrechamente con los primeros reyes de la [[Casa de Estuardo]] y las tesis de los teólogos carolinos, quienes fundamentaban en la Biblia las concepciones de [[Jacob VI de Escocia y I de Inglaterra]], [[Carlos I de Inglaterra]] y [[Carlos II de Inglaterra]]. Sin embargo, estas ideas fueron puestas por escrito entre 1597-98, antes del ascenso de Jacobo —ya rey de Escocia— al trono inglés. Su ''[[Basilikon Doron]]'', un manual de los deberes de un rey, fue escrito como manual de educación para su hijo de cuatro años [[Enrique Estuardo|Henry Frederick, Príncipe de Gales]], que murió joven, sin llegar a reinar. Según ese texto, un buen rey:
: « ''Se reconoce a sí mismo como destinado para su pueblo, habiendo recibido de Dios la carga del gobierno, de la cual debe dar cuenta ''»
<!---
The conception of [[ordination]] brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the [[Anglican]] and [[Catholic]] priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in James' handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the [[Ten Commandments|fifth commandment]], so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance."<ref>C.V. Wedgwood, ''The King's Peace'' 1956:63.</ref> James' reading of ''[[The Trew Law of Free Monarchies]]'' allowed that "A good King will frame his actions to be according to the law, yet he is not bound thereto but of his good will." James also had printed his ''Defense of the Right of Kings'' in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights.
It is related to the ancient (not now) Catholic philosophies regarding Monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. However, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence the monarch is always subject to the following powers which are regarded as superior to the monarch:
#The Old Testament in which a line of kings was created by God through the prophecy of Jacob/Israel who created his son [[Judah (Bible)|Judah]] to be king and retain the sceptre until the coming of the Messiah, alongside the line of priests created in his other son, [[Levi]]. Later a line of Judges who were, in effect, kings, was created alongside the line of High Priests created by [[Moses]] through [[Aaron]]. Later still, the Prophet [[Samuel (Bible)|Samuel]] re-instituted the line of kings in [[Saul]], under the inspiration of God.
#The New Testament in which the first Pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor.
#The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors [[Constantine I|Constantine]] and [[Theodosius I|Theodosius]], later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, [[Charlemagne]].
The Caroline divines, having rejected the pope and Roman Catholicism, were left only with the supreme power of the King who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the counter-veiling power of the Papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the State and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the King and he became an absolute power. In theory, [[Divine law|Divine]], [[Natural law|Natural]], customary and [[constitutional law]] still held sway over the King but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the King could not be tried by any of his own courts.
Some of the symbolism within the [[Coronation of the British monarch|coronation]] ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are [[anointed]] with [[Holy oil]]s by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]], thereby [[Holy Orders|''ordaining'']] them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realise this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor). However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there since the real power of the Monarch was all but extinguished by the Whig revolution of 1688/9 (see [[Glorious Revolution]]). The king or queen of the [[United Kingdom]] is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an [[inauguration]] or other declaration.
--->
| |||