James I’s divine-right doctrine killed English support for the Morisco rebels
Evidence
King James was proud of being an author of independent stature, and among the not inconsiderable list of books to his credit there are two, The True Law of Free Monarchies of 1598 and Basilikon Doron of 1599, in which he had just set out with clarity his thoughts on the divine right of kings, a doctrine of which he was an unconditional supporter. In the long run, Stuart ideas about the nature of kingship were to cost England (and Scotland) a great deal. James’s rigid conception of what should be the relationship between monarch and subject were more immediately disastrous for the Moriscos. Subjects owed complete and unconditional allegiance to their monarch. On learning that Elizabeth and her officials had been toying with the idea of supporting the Moriscos, subjects of the king of Spain, against their divinely appointed monarch, Philip III, James made it clear he would have nothing to do with such scandalous dealings. Subjects had no right to oppose their ruler. That was axiomatic. He was not content simply to withdraw support from rebels and traitors, he insisted on going further and handing over to his divinely appointed opposite number in Spain information about what had been going on. — L. P. Harvey, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, 1619
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the logic in ‘On Sacrifice’ about how abstract ideology (sacral kingship) has concrete lethal consequences; also broadens the monarchy-of-god-king theme which also structures the ‘Obedience as duty’ doctrine in many imperial settings.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — L. P. Harvey, Muslims in Spain, 1500 to 1614, 1619