In the fifteenth century, the king’s authority in France grew immensely. There was a prevailing belief that the king received his authority directly from God, exempting him from any secular rule and granting him full rights. The king adopted the title “by the grace of God, King of France and Navarre.” According to this perspective, kings were a divine gift to the people, meant to be revered as divine deputies. The notion of subjects overseeing an authority derived from God was considered inappropriate. The king, seen as inviolable, bore no accountability to mortals. He committed to ruling in alignment with God’s will, ensuring fairness and compassion in all judgments.
The king exercised control over the judicial system, being the source of all legislation (Lex Rex). His influence extended to making decisions at his discretion and intervening in legal proceedings. With the authority to issue pardons and letters of arrest for imprisonment in state prisons without trial, the king could delegate the pronouncement of judgments to the courts.
Maintaining authority over administration, the king bestowed offices and titles as he saw fit. He personally collected taxes and held sole discretion over the utilization of the accumulated funds.
Additionally, the king assumed the role of the supreme commander of the army, directing foreign policy and diplomacy.
When it came to taxation, the king had the liberty to impose taxes on subjects at his discretion, and there were no uniform tax structures for all residents or the entire country.
As the king’s position was inherited, kings were frequently ill-suited for their roles, and their upbringing in wealth and abundance often kept them distant from the struggles of the common people.
During the late 18th century, especially as Enlightenment ideas gained prominence, there was increasing skepticism about absolute monarchy and divine right. The French Revolution, with its emphasis on liberty, equality, and secularism, challenged the traditional authority of the monarchy and the intertwining of religious and political power.
It’s crucial to emphasize that this shift in perception—from viewing the king as a divine deputy to recognizing him as a common man—did not happen abruptly or overnight. At the beginning of the revolution, the majority of the people still held onto the notion of the divine right of kings, as it was the belief instilled in them from a young age. For example, when the issue of determining the punishment for a king Louis XVI betraying a country arose, the government refrained from involving the people, fearing potential disagreement. Furthermore, the government itself was divided, with 387 votes in favor of the king’s death and 334 votes against. People’s reactions to the king’s execution varied, ranging from approval to perceiving it as an act of brutality. They lacked a figurehead who could effectively represent their leadership.
If you were a king with several hundred years of heritage, holding command over everything, how would you respond if the people insisted on participating in governance?
If you were a commoner, how do you think you would react to the king’s execution?
If you were a commoner, how would you respond if, after ten years of tumultuous times marked by economic, social, political, and war turbulence, a man were to emerge promising an end to this upheaval?