It's kind of hard for me to see monarchies characterized as inherently evil, because I'm a Christian, and the Bible does a lot of talking about the Kingdom of God. And it's not really a literary, metaphorical way of expressing divine power either.
The Levant seemed to have a lot of kings, but it seems possible that Isaiah could have known about the poleis in Greece which were democratic or republican. I doubt the writing here would have required the use of monarchical terms if they didn't apply. And of course, when we go forward in time to Paul, he certainly would have known about the Roman Republic. Yet all of the writing enthrones God or pseudo-alternately Jesus as King (or at least Prince!). In either case, it's presented as a good thing, right rule, and so it's really hard for me to say that heritable monarchy is a bad thing. Jesus seems like a pretty cool guy.
(Also the Bible kind of goes out of its way, especially compared to contemporaneous books, to criticize its leaders and royalty. Even King David who gets pretty good press overall is condemned for his cruelty to Uriah the Hittite. So royalty is definitely not universally good!)
If we're going to bring in the whole "No gods or kings, only man" thing, it sort of clashes with the idea that we do in fact have gods. They're not all good (see DW5), but they do have power. Lately Professor Deveraux's series on Practical Polythism has been kicking around my head. The last part of that series gets into how emperors came to be deified, for the simple reason that they were also entities who wielded vast powers with just a word, and must be appeased with offerings. In any case, the powers do exist if we like it or not, and need to be appeased.
I think though, fundamentally I'm a pragmatist on the issue. Hierarchies may or may not be desirable, but they are inevitable in any political system. Kings do bad things and get people into stupid wars where they treat their own subjects as cannon fodder. But then republics do bad things too. From the genocide of the Carthaginians to the genocide of the Native Americans, republics have been capable of vast amounts of violence too. Constitutional monarchs with limited powers usually have a moderating influence on their society, but sometimes don't (the King of Italy was fairly chummy with Mussolini for quite some time). But really I'll side with whoever is actually being a beacon of happy goodness right now.
The trappings of monarchy aren't interesting to me. I don't need the hero worship, and thinking about the lords and ladies as being superior humans is stupid. They're just better dressed. I live unfortunately close to Prince Harry and Meghan, who seem to be failing as both royalty and commoners at the moment. I do like heraldry though, which is mainly because I like flags.
Isaiah 9:6-7a Wrote:For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end.
The Levant seemed to have a lot of kings, but it seems possible that Isaiah could have known about the poleis in Greece which were democratic or republican. I doubt the writing here would have required the use of monarchical terms if they didn't apply. And of course, when we go forward in time to Paul, he certainly would have known about the Roman Republic. Yet all of the writing enthrones God or pseudo-alternately Jesus as King (or at least Prince!). In either case, it's presented as a good thing, right rule, and so it's really hard for me to say that heritable monarchy is a bad thing. Jesus seems like a pretty cool guy.
(Also the Bible kind of goes out of its way, especially compared to contemporaneous books, to criticize its leaders and royalty. Even King David who gets pretty good press overall is condemned for his cruelty to Uriah the Hittite. So royalty is definitely not universally good!)
If we're going to bring in the whole "No gods or kings, only man" thing, it sort of clashes with the idea that we do in fact have gods. They're not all good (see DW5), but they do have power. Lately Professor Deveraux's series on Practical Polythism has been kicking around my head. The last part of that series gets into how emperors came to be deified, for the simple reason that they were also entities who wielded vast powers with just a word, and must be appeased with offerings. In any case, the powers do exist if we like it or not, and need to be appeased.
I think though, fundamentally I'm a pragmatist on the issue. Hierarchies may or may not be desirable, but they are inevitable in any political system. Kings do bad things and get people into stupid wars where they treat their own subjects as cannon fodder. But then republics do bad things too. From the genocide of the Carthaginians to the genocide of the Native Americans, republics have been capable of vast amounts of violence too. Constitutional monarchs with limited powers usually have a moderating influence on their society, but sometimes don't (the King of Italy was fairly chummy with Mussolini for quite some time). But really I'll side with whoever is actually being a beacon of happy goodness right now.
The trappings of monarchy aren't interesting to me. I don't need the hero worship, and thinking about the lords and ladies as being superior humans is stupid. They're just better dressed. I live unfortunately close to Prince Harry and Meghan, who seem to be failing as both royalty and commoners at the moment. I do like heraldry though, which is mainly because I like flags.
"Kitto daijoubu da yo." - Sakura Kinomoto