It seems as though King James contradicts his second key point to kingship, “the king is above the law”, once he authorizes the concept of “king-in-Parliament”: the king holds absolute power under Parliament. Yet, couldn’t one argue that the king’s establishment of “king-in-Parliament” is actually an exercise of absolute power? If the king initially holds absolute power above the law, yet decides to share power under the law with Parliament, then he truly holds all power. It’s almost as if the king establishes his own system of checks and balances. From there, would he have to be allowed by Parliament or just self-authorize the decision to undo the “king-in-Parliament”?
According to Carroll, “The King’s Power” includes power over the life and death of every person that inhabits the land(s) that he rules over. Here, the king is no longer a subject under the authority of God. Yet, the king becomes equivalent to God by means of having the ability to take total control over others’ lives. It makes sense for kings to be called gods who reign divinely on Earth. They become distinguishable from the Omnipotent and All-Seeing God because they can die and can extend their powers but so far over their own lands and people.
The article “The Trial and Execution of Charles I” provides a prime example of how the lack of charismatic leadership can conflict with succession. Charles I may have inherited kingship from his father, King James I, but he did not have as much potential to rule effectively. During his trial, he wouldn’t even show respect for the proceeding by taking off his hat, which hinted at his lack of care for the position of the throne due to his inability to be an effective king. Therefore, it was not really fair for him to be executed due to poor decisions in kingship. Perhaps, he could have only been removed through a forced trial without execution.
” It makes sense for kings to be called gods who reign divinely on Earth.”
Do you say this because as a King, you can kill anyone you want? So, in a way, you decided who lives or dies like a god? If yes, I agree with you in that sense but I think that depends on your definition of God. I believe that God has divine rule over life but also the natural worlds as well. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t make total sense that kings declared themselves gods.
I agree that he should not have been executed. He was not an effective ruler but that doesnt mean that he should be put to death. I really like the question youre asking about absolute power and I think that the kind had absolute power and was smart enough to share it. I strongly believe that absolute power in a single human being is not a good idea. No one person should be in control of everything it makes corruption to easy. It also just tends to end badly especially if the person in power didnt want it.