last, moreover, the emperor retained the prerogative of creating kings, as in the case of the king of Prussia in 1701, a right borrowed and freely used by the emperor Napoleon. Since 1814 the title of king has been assumed or bestowed by a consensus of the Powers; e.g. the elector of Hanover was made king by the congress of Vienna (1814), and per contra the title of king was refused to the elector of Hesse by the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818). In general the title of king is now taken to imply a sovereign and independent international position. This was implied in the recognition of the title of king in the rulers of Greece, Rumania, Servia and Bulgaria when these countries were declared absolutely independent of Turkey. The fiction of this independent sovereignty is preserved even in the case of the kings of Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg, who are technically members of a free confederation of sovereign states, but are not independent, since their relations with foreign Powers are practically controlled by the king of Prussia as German emperor.
The theory of the “divine right” of kings, as at present understood, is of comparatively modern growth. The principle that the kingship is “descendible in one sacred family,” as George Canning put it, is not only still that of the British constitution, as that of all monarchical Divine Right of Kings. states, but is practically that of kingship from the beginning. This is, however, quite a different thing from asserting with the modern upholders of the doctrine of “divine right” not only that “legitimate” monarchs derive their authority from, and are responsible to, God alone, but that this authority is by divine ordinance hereditary in a certain order of succession. The power of popular election remained, even though popular choice was by custom or by religious sentiment confined within the limits of a single family. The custom of primogeniture grew up owing to the obvious convenience of a simple rule that should avoid ruinous contests; the so-called “Salic Law” went further, and by excluding females, removed another possible source of weakness. Neither did the Teutonic kingship imply absolute power. The idea of kingship as a theocratic function which played so great a part in the political controversies of the 17th century, is due ultimately to Oriental influences brought to bear through Christianity. The crowning and anointing of the emperors, borrowed from Byzantium and traceable to the influence of the Old Testament, was imitated by lesser potentates; and this “sacring” by ecclesiastical authority gave to the king a character of special sanctity. The Christian king thus became, in a sense, like the Roman rex, both king and priest. Shakespeare makes Richard II. say, “Not all the water in the rough rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king” (act iii. sc. 2); and this conception of the kingship tended to gather strength with the weakening of the prestige of the papacy and of the clergy generally. Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes; after the Reformation he became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also. In England it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy—dalmatic, alb and stole—continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see Coronation). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his “sacring,” but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV., would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title. In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its extremest logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century. Of its exponents the most distinguished was Hobbes, the most exaggerated Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the Civil War, the royalists holding that “all Christian kings, princes and governors” derive their authority direct from God, the parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people. In one case the king’s power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV.’s famous saying: “L’état, c’est moi!” or limitable only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal “martyr”; it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II. made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king; and the revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. These events had effects far beyond England. They served as precedents for the crusade of republican France against kings, and later for the substitution of the democratic kingship of Louis Philippe, “king of the French by the grace of God and the will of the people,” for the “legitimate” kingship of Charles X., “king of France by the grace of God.”
The theory of the crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action, and yet also “by the grace of God,” is in strict accordance with the earliest traditions of the English kingship; but the rival theory of inalienable divine right is not dead. It is strong in Germany and especially in Prussia; it survives as a militant force among the Carlists in Spain and the Royalists in France (see Legitimists); and even in England a remnant of enthusiasts still maintain the claims of a remote descendant of Charles I. to the throne (see Jacobites).
See J. Neville Figgis, Theory of the Divine Right of Kings (Cambridge, 1896). (W. A. P.)
KING-BIRD, the Lanius tyrannus of Linnaeus, and the
Tyrannus carolinensis or T. pipiri of most later writers, a common
and characteristic inhabitant of North America, ranging
as high as 57° N. lat. or farther, and westward to the Rocky
Mountains, beyond which it is found in Oregon, in Washington
(State), and in British Columbia, though apparently not occurring
in California. In Canada and the northern states of the Union it is
a summer visitor, wintering in the south, but also reaching Cuba;
and, passing through Central America, it has been found in
Bolivia and eastern Peru. Both the scientific and common
names of this species are taken from the way in which the cock
will at times assume despotic authority over other birds, attacking
them furiously as they fly, and forcing them to divert or
altogether desist from their course. Yet it is love of his mate
or his young that prompts this bellicose behaviour, for it is only
in the breeding season that he indulges in it; but then almost
every large bird that approaches his nest, from an eagle downwards,
is assaulted, and those alone that possess greater command
of flight can escape from his repeated charges, which are accompanied
by loud and shrill cries. On these occasions it may be
that the king-bird displays the emblem of his dignity, which
is commonly concealed; for, being otherwise rather plainly
coloured—dark-ashy grey above and white beneath—the erectile
feathers of the crown of the head, on being parted, form as it
were a deep furrow, and reveal their base, which is of a bright
golden-orange in front, deepening into scarlet, and then passing
into silvery white. This species seems to live entirely on insects,
which it captures on the wing; it is in bad repute with bee-keepers,[1]
though, according to Dr E. Coues, it “destroys a thousand
noxious insects for every bee it eats.” It builds, often in an
exposed situation, a rather large nest, coarsely constructed outside,
but neatly lined with fine roots or grasses, and lays five or
six eggs of a pale salmon colour, beautifully marked with blotches
and spots of purple, brown and orange, generally disposed in a
zone near the larger end.
Nearly akin to the king-bird is the petchary or chicheree, so called from its loud and petulant cry, T. dominicensis, or T. griseus, one of the most characteristic and conspicuous birds of the West Indies, and the earliest to give notice of the break of day. In habits, except that it eats a good many berries, it is the very counterpart of its congener, and is possibly even more jealous of any intruder. At all events its pugnacity extends to
- ↑ It is called in some parts the bee-martin.
