Common Sense, II - Of Monarchy And Hereditary Succession

The worst part of a monarchy is the unnatural division it places between the king and the people. Even the enormous split between rich and poor can be explained by the rich meriting their wealth-- but clearly no one has merited the power granted the king. Further evidence of the unnaturalness of monarchy comes from the Old Testament, where the Israelites were long warned against, and then punished for adopting a king.

Worse even than the institution of the king is hereditary succession-- a further perversion that binds the descendents forever to the mistakes of their elders. Perhaps hereditary succession began as a matter of convenience-- but then to claim it as a natural right is absurd. And look no further than William the Conquerer to see the dishonor in claiming such a right. Further, those who grow up in the knowledge they will be king naturally grow up unfit to lead the people. We also end up with kings too young or too old to actually lead, and are then at the mercy of scheming ministers. Hereditary succession does not even prevent internal strife-- look at the wars between York and Lancaster, where ultimately allegiance depended on a display of power, not a "natural" claim.

And once a real republic is set up by Parliament, there is less and less for the king even to do. He doesn't lead battle, he doesn't judge conflicts. All that's left is making war and dispersing patronage. Useless!

------------------

Good lines:

(On the Catholic hierarchy withholding the Bible from the commoners, so they don't see the folly of the Israelites): "For monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government." Tee-hee.

"One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise, she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion."

(On William the Conquerer): "A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original."

(On the diminished, and destructive, current role of the king): "A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain!"

Embarrassing history I had to look up: William the Conquere led the Norman Conquest (from Normandy), winning the Battle of Hastings in 1066. He had a convoluted claim to the throne after the death of the childless Edward the Confessor. He submitted his claim and was granted legitimacy by Pope Alexander II. Defeated Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, partly through the use of many archers. Ruled from Normandy for the most part, introducing a hybrid culture into England.

York and Lancaster: The War of the Roses, over the proper line of succession, from 1455-1485.