Paine delegitimized hereditary monarchy by exposing conqueror origins of royal lines
Evidence
“The first of them,” he writes of the founder of any royal dynasty, was “nothing better than the principal ruffian of some restless Gang.” Successors lack even that claim and could give “mankind as Ass for a Lion.” Paine repeatedly draws on the British royal lineage, whose founder William the Conqueror he depicts as “a French Bastard landing with an armed Banditti and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives,” for examples of the oppression, expense, and warfare that flows from monarchic rule. “Monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the World in blood and ashes,” he concludes. “Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.” — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 54
Categorization
- XREF: Paine’s contractarian argument that legitimacy rests on native consent ties to course themes of popular sovereignty underlying the Declaration. — connects to: Paine argued balanced government of England functioned as one-sided monarchy — Edward J. Larson, Declaring Independence, 52; Medieval royal chronicles legitimized current rule by legitimately descended dynasties — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 967; Reconquest historiography framed conquest as restoration of Gothic rule — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 955 (+1 more)
Broader Connections
- History writing once served royal legitimacy until the invasion narrative broke it
#corroborates(0.95) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 4138 - Medieval royal chronicles legitimized current rule by legitimately descended dynasties
#contradicts(0.85) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 967 - Reconquest historiography framed conquest as restoration of Gothic rule
#complicates(0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 955