For the first time in our 258-year history, America might be getting a king, and there is no such thing as a good king!
I find the historical development of monarchy fascinating, and being the Anglophile that I am, I am especially captivated by the customs of the British Crown. My DNA is three-quarters English, Northern Irish, with a little Scottish thrown in for good measure. I also have a bit of Danish, which is not surprising, given the shared history of Great Britain and Scandinavia in the 9th to the 11th centuries.
We might be indebted to the ancient Norsemen for passing down the notion of a “good king.” In the opening lines of the Old English poem, Beowulf—set in 5th-6th century pagan Scandinavia and probably written down closer to 1000 CE— we are introduced to Scyld Scéfing, a man known for violence against his enemies, and his gifts of treasure to his friends, a man of whom the poet says þæt wæs gód cyning (that was “a good king”). [Source: Kingship in the Viking Age – Icelandic Sagas, English Kingship, & Warrior Poets (December 14, 2024]. Prior to the Norman Invasion of 1066, England was ruled by a Danish king known as Canute the Great. Those of us with English heritage know why we carry Danish DNA.
The Norsemen evidently recognized something akin to “the divine right of kings,” which British monarchs wholeheartedly embraced from an early age of the institution. Of course, that notion existed long before the Middle Ages—the ancient Israelites knew something about that, too.
When the Israelites clamored for a king, YHWH reminded them that their desire was superfluous. In 1 Samuel 8, the people of Israel ask the prophet to set a king over them, that they be “like other nations.” Up to this moment, there had been no monarch; it was understood that YHWH was the only king they needed. But the people persisted.
Upon instructions from the LORD. Samuel tries to warn them of their folly.
So Samuel reported all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots, and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his courtiers. He will take one-tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his courtiers. He will take your male and female slaves and the best of your cattle] and donkeys and put them to his work. He will take one-tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And on that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you on that day.”
—1 Samuel 8:10-18 (NRSVUE)
Photo by Gvantsa Javakhishvili on Unsplash
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, specifically in Deuteronomy 17, the obligations of the “good king” are outlined:
“When you have come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’ you may indeed set over you a king whom the Lord your God will choose. One of your own community you may set as king over you; you are not permitted to put a foreigner over you, who is not of your own community. Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the Lord has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’ And he must not acquire many wives for himself or else his heart will turn away; also silver and gold he must not acquire in great quantity for himself. When he has taken the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law on a scroll in the presence of the Levitical priests. It shall remain with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, diligently observing all the words of this law and these statutes, neither exalting himself above other members of the community nor turning aside from the commandment, either to the right or to the left, so that he and his descendants may reign long over his kingdom in Israel.”
—Deuteronomy 17:14-20 (NRSVUE)
The careful reader will note that most of the kings of Israel failed to conform to those standards. Some, like Ahab, were downright apostate. Remember Queen Jezebel? A good friend and mentor says that the very institution of the Israelite kingship was a dismal failure! I tend to agree. Keep in mind that Deuteronomy appears chronologically after the unfortunate experiences with some of the most flagrant offenders who have sat on the throne. Think of the opulence of Solomon and his myriad wives and concubines (cf v. 17)! Solomon’s life does not come close to meeting the standard set down in Deuteronomy 17. Still, Solomon is a beloved king!
Historically, the institution of monarchy did not begin with anything as complex and nuanced as the British royalty—some say it is an anachronism, which has outlived its usefulness. I will not weigh in on that matter since it really does not concern me as an American. It took centuries for the Briskish monarchy to evolve. To be fair and accurate, Great Britain’s government performs within the framework of a constitutional monarchy where “the Crown” is little more than a figurehead, but still, all lawful policies must be blessed by the monarch or they are not implemented. This differs widely from the monarchies of the Arab world, which are a bit more absolutist, and some are religiously mandated.
To be sure, there have been strong monarchs and weak ones, kind ones and cruel ones—kings or queens who were progressive and wise, while others were either dullards or morally dissolute—or both. They all ascended from a position of strength, dating back to the first rulers who had the largest army or the who controlled the most real estate.
But the reality of a benevolent king is mostly a myth.
A king—any king—sits on a throne which is the very symbol of governance by domination. He often got there because he inherited the title, and he reigns for the rest of his natural life; he ceases to rule only when he dies. There are no opportunities for his subjects to weigh in on his policies. His word is final on all matters, and there are no “guardrails” against aberrant behavior. There are no provisions for impeachment.
The king may or may not be of an amiable disposition, which might lead to some reform. One thinks of the plot to assassinate Queen Victoria in 1842. The plotter fired at her but missed. He was subsequently convicted of treason, which carried the barbaric penalty of hanging, drawing, and quartering. The queen commuted his sentence to banishment for life, citing a desire that her reign should be more humane. She could have just easily accepted that cruelty was part of being a leader. Thankfully, she did not.
I am aware of those who suggest that Mr. Trump’s moral behavior—objectionable as it might be—is really sort of “Davidic.” If that observation is tied to the assertion that he is God’s chosen—well, count me as a no vote. But then, I distress, but only a little.
When the Founders were pondering the sort of government América might have, a monarchy was considered—and rejected. And so it was. The problem with the king—or queen—is that entitlement to authority that derives from something other than the consent of the governed is inherently flawed. It often deuterates into tyranny.
In the Bible, the apostasy of the Israelites in “clamoring” for a king was a rejection of the covenant relationship between the people and YHWH—the proper name of Israel’s God. Their security had always been centered in that relationship. But now, they were to be subjected to the whims of flawed humans. Their history from that point forward was to become regrettable.
The man who is to become president next month has been enabled by a dubious Supreme Court ruling that effectively makes him a king. It would be a mistake to ignore the dangers in that. History shows there is no such thing as a “good king.”
Thinking Out Loud publishes twice weekly on Substack.com and on WordPress at Shalomista.com.. Thank you for supporting my work. Please share these posts widely and consider a subscription. Join the fray with a paid subscription and give me a piece of your mind— or you can always lurk for free! All views expressed are entirely my own and have no connection to any institution of which I might be a member.