Please note that the following religious views were not presented to offend anyone or to suggest that there are no other opinions. They are merely presented as evidences that monarchy was considered by many to be a divinely ordained institution for the good of mankind by the ancients or famous men and philosophers of long, long ago.

The following is similar to other chapters. It is an evolving study on limited monarchy, which, in a constitutional form, along with other critically important separations of power, is, by far, the most choice form of government that man has ever devised to protect and safeguard basic human rights.


The ancient prophets and men of wisdom from various parts of the world considered monarchy to be a divine institution or the best kind of government possible. However, it is even better, or vastly improved, when combined with democracy and the rule of just and wholesome laws. Nothing could be of greater benefit to any country than such a favorable or well disposed state of affairs. But, in addition, these ancient men taught that kings and princes have additional responsibilities to live exemplary lives, something particularly relevant and important to the future of every royal and noble house. (See the article “Virtue and Greatness”)

Monarchy was Endorsed
and Instituted of Heaven

As food for thought, in the Associated Papers in London is 1793, it stated:

They tell us that all Kings are bad; that God never made a King; and that all Kings are very expensive. But, that all Kings are bad cannot be true: because God himself is one of them; he calls himself King of Kings; which not only shows us he is a King, but he has other Kings under him: he is never called King of Republics. The Scripture calls Kings, the Lord’s Anointed; but who ever heard of an anointed Republic? (


Monarchy has been considered as a sacred institution for thousands of years. Jacques Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704), a well-known French Bishop and author, believed and espoused the concept of monarchy as a God given and a divine to benefit man. He quoted Ecclesiastics 17:14 showing that “Over every nation he [God] set a ruler.” That is, “By me [by the power and authority of God] kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me [that is, by God] princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.” (Proverbs 8:15-16) He then quotes Romans 13:3-4 showing that we should respect and obey “rulers,” “For he [the ruler] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” He concluded that “The person of the king is sacred, and to attack him in any way is sacrilege.” This meant that “No group, whether they be nobles, or a parliament, or the people in the street, have a right to participate in this [the king’s] rule; to question or oppose the monarch was to rebel against God . . . .” (

Continuing in this vein, he quoted, Peter as saying, “Fear God. Honour the king.” (I Peter 2:17). Why? Because God honors them. ( “The Talmud teaches that upon entering the Promised Land, The Bnei Yisrael were charged with three commands: to choose a king, to destroy Amalek and to build a Temple.” ( And Moses, the great lawgiver of ancient times, commanded the House of Israel that when they asked for a king in the promised land that, “Thou shalt only set him king over thee whom Jehovah thy God will choose: from among thy brethren shalt thou set a king over thee. . . .” (Deuteronomy 17:15 Darby version) In other words, he must be a divinely appointed and chosen king–someone the Lord approved of. The “. . . Chazal’s [or authoritative opinion of the Talmud is the] view that kingship over Israel is a Biblical requirement.” ( But the people wanted the wrong kind of king back in the days of Samuel, the prophet, that is, they asked him “now make us a king to judge us like all the nations,” not the kind of king God had described and designated. And this “. . . clearly indicate[s] that God did not desire his people to have absolute kings as the Gentiles had them, because He foresaw that they would abuse such power.” (Saint Robert Bellarmine, a Catholic scholar and cardinal: Hence, Samuel’s strong opposition to them, but in the end, the Lord told Samuel three times to “Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king . . . .” (1 Samuel 8) That is, God, himself, had established and founded the rule of kings among the people. And when Saul was made king at that time and given the charge to be the right kind of king, which he sincerely wanted to be, said in the presence of the prophet and the people, “. . . today [because of this new, higher, divine order of sovereignty] the Lord hath wrought salvation in Israel.” (I Samuel 11:13) In others words, something truly great had taken place. Or as John Calvin (1509-1564) once stated, “. . . princes and rulers have this honour given them, because in their office they are vicegerents of God, the supreme King and Judge. . . .” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, chapter 14) A vicegerent is one who holds the distinction of being a deputy or representative of something greater or more important than oneself.

A Limited Monarchy was
Instituted in Ancient Israel


Even though God created kings, it was to be limited or controlled by a rule of law, which included the power of the High Priest or Levitical Priesthood, the influence of the Prophets and the vote of the king’s council. In other words, it was a rule that had checks and balances. It was designed to have important safeguards. Note the following commandment:

  1. And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
  2. And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:
  3. That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left. . . . (Deuteronomy 17)

In the Mishnah, we find Rabbi Simeon writing about things considered sacred to the Jews. He wrote, “There are three crowns: The crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty. . . .” (
/avot.html) Royalty and kingship were so sacred that they were mentioned as equals to the priesthood and the Torah itself, but not above them. The kings were to be followers of righteousness in their hearts or to the core of their being. Hence, the God of heaven made this extremely important obligation. His creation was not the right of an unlimited scepter of absolute power. Such was never at any time authorized in this divine institution of monarchy.

In the community of Qumran about 200 B.C., what is most surprising is that “over a thousand years before the Magna Charta, the Dead Sea sectaries promote a constitutional monarch.” The king was “to have a council of thirty-six, consisting of twelve priests, twelve Levites, and twelve Israelites, which held veto powers over the king. He had to consult the council on everything. He could not declare war without its consent.” So even though “the book of Deuteronomy . . . prescribes a constitutional monarch,” which is different from the kinds of kings found round about, “. . . the Temple Scroll puts teeth into its laws [of limitation] by ordaining [that there should be with the king] an executive body that can enforce [the limits].” (Truman G. Madsen, ed., The Temple in Antiquity: Ancient Records and Modern Perspectives, p. 132) In support of this, Flavius Josephus, a priest and scholar about 78 B.C. undertook a massive work in Greek explaining the history of the Jews. He explained that Moses prophecied, “. . . let him [the king] be always careful of justice and other virtues perpetually; let him submit to the laws, and esteem God’s commands to be his highest wisdom; but let him do nothing without the high priest and the votes of the senators. . . .” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 4, Chapter 8:17) ( Again, kings should be limited and constrained by a keen desire to be righteous and obedient to God’s laws and, in addition, by a powerful council that had veto power. All of these things were to protect the people from abuse and ensure the best good and interests of society. It is doubtful that this order was followed, but it could have spared the people great difficulties and problems. It was a divinely approved system.


However, and this is a major point, if democracy were indeed the best form of government as some suggest, was it not strange that the God of all the universe failed to discover it or share this so-called shining truth? In Biblical history there is no mention of it. But monarchy limited by an aristocracy and the consent of the people is mentioned. This mix of monarchy, aristocracy and representational government is considered to be the best that ever was or ever could be for mankind.

Adam Clarke (1762 – 1832), a widely respected and well known Biblical scholar, took forty years to create his exhaustive commentary. On the Samuel and kingship in Israel, he wrote that the children of Israel wanted an absolute king like the nations around them, but God in his wisdom gave them a the best kind of monarchy — a monarchy that was supposed to be limited. Adam Clarke explained that the kingly government of God is “where the king, the nobles, and the people, are duly mixed, each having his proper part in the government, and each preventing the other from running to excess, and all limited by law.” (Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary, 1 Samuel 8: This is a perfect example of the great principle of “checks and balances,” which is extremely protective of freedom and important to the preservation of what is right and good and wholesome in mankind. (See: “Ideals”—“The True Guardians of Freedom and Prosperity: Checks and Balances”) Adam Clarke elaborated:

That the three grand forms of government which have obtained among mankind, viz., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, have each certain advantages without which no state can be well preserved; but they have evils by which any state may be injured. That, from a proper mixture of these, the advantages of the whole may be reaped without any of their attendant evils. (Ibid.)

In other words, if set up right, this kind of government works extremely well. It is also interesting that this type of government was considered the best that has ever existed by the wisest men who ever lived. They believed in it and taught it to others. (See: “Advantages”—number 9: “Constitutional Monarchy: A combination of the best that man has ever devised to promote freedom and prosperity”) But before they ever lived and proclaimed this, it was what God wanted for ancient Israel. Adam Clarke concluded that this form of limited monarchy or “. . . kingly government, properly understood, is a good of the first magnitude to the civil happiness of mankind.” (Ibid.)

The Old Testament Describes
an Unending Dynasty

Bishop Bossuet noted the special promises given to David and the royal dynasty God created for Israel anciently in his writings about divine rights. That is, that the “. . . kingdom of the LORD [is] in the hand of the sons of David. . .” and that “. . . Solomon [who was chosen after David] sat on the throne of the LORD as king . . . ,” and “king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever” meaning it shall never end. (2 Chronicles 13:8; 1 Chronicles 29:23 and 1 Kings 2:45) In other words, God was with these monarchs and had established their thrones to continue forever in the earth.

Elaborating on this important enterprise, we find in Psalms that it declares: “I [meaning God] have made a covenant with my chosen [the Royal House of David], I have sworn unto David my servant, saying, Thy seed [that is, of your offspring, a royal dynasty] will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” (89:3-4; see also 2 Samuel 7:12-16) Note that his throne was to last not just a few years, but “to ALL generations.” A very significant statement.

Many have thought that since David’s descendants became unrighteous that the promise was modified or even canceled out. However, David stated that “Although my house be not so with God [that is, ‘just, ruling in the fear of God’]; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure. . . .” (2 Samuel 23:1,5) In other words, individuals may falter and lose blessings on an individual basis, but the Davidic covenant to David’s posterity is perpetual and never ending. In fact, so sure are these promises–that of royal kingship over the descendants of Jacob that the Lord, himself said, “. . . My covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for evermore, and his throne as the days of heaven.” (Psalms 89:28-29) Then the Lord made it even more sure and said, “If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments. . . . Nevertheless [in] my lovingkindness will I not . . . suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” (Psalms 89:30-31,33-34) In other words, God, who cannot lie, promised it, therefore it will take place as sure as God lives. Then in even stronger language, God is again quoted as saying, “His [David’s] seed [his royal successors] shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven.” (Psalms 89:34-37) So absolutely and permanently sure was this promise that as long as the moon exists, so would the seed and throne of David stand intact somewhere upon the earth in a ruling capacity among the sons of Jacob. In other words, “. . . the Lord God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons [his successors] by a covenant of salt,” which means a perpetual covenant or duty bound up forever. (2 Chronicles 13:5)


Jeremiah, the prophet, reiterated how solid the above promises were in different words. He quoted God as saying, “Thus saith the Lord; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and . . . there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne. . . .” (Jeremiah 33:20-21) “For thus saith the Lord; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” (Ibid. 33:17) These promises are very clear. Continuing Jeremiah again quoted God as saying, “Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. . . .” (Ibid. 33:26) Hardly could there be stronger language or a promise made to an enduring dynasty than these amazing promises.

Two lines of kings apparently spring up from the royal heritage of David. One has intermarried or mixed itself with all the royal families of Europe and the other is represented by the royal and imperial house of Ethiopia. (
.html; & So this ancient promise of a royal unbroken line of kings may still be intact. (For what appears to be scientific support of this intact royal line see “the stone of destiny,” (

God Ordained That
There Should be Kings

But not only are Israel’s kings approved by heaven, Bishop Bossuet quotes Isaiah who wrote about a Persian king who was not of Israel, yet who was greatly honored and recognized as a divinely appointed and chosen king, “Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him . . . .” (Isaiah 45:1) The conclusion is as before quoted, that is, by God the kings and princes of both Israel and the world reign. In addition, Daniel, the prophet, while interpreting a dream the heavens gave to Nebuchadnezzar, said, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.” In other words, God “hath made thee ruler over them all.” (Daniel 2:37,38)

Jeremiah was told:

And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; Behold I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them. (Jeremiah 43:10)

In other words, God gave him dominion–“and all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son. . . .” (Jeremiah 22:7) Daniel, the prophet said about this great royal personage who God had set up:

Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. (Daniel 2:37-38)

Here again is a non-Israelite monarch whom God chose and ordained to reign as a high king over many lands. As a further evidence of God appointing kings, Elijah, as God’s mouthpiece by divine appointment, anointed Hazael, a non-Israelite, king of Syria despite the fact that he saw in vision that he would be evil and he wept over what he saw, and Hazael remonstrated saying that he was not a dog that he would do such atrocities. (1 Kings 19:15-17; 2 Kings 8:7-13) Nevertheless, God had appointed him to the royal position as king and he had the agency to choose to do what was good and right–God had chosen him as the lord and high ruler of this land. Paul wrote concerning Pharaoh, which by interpretation means king of the royal blood. He wrote the following of the Pharaoh of Egypt who lived during the days of Moses and declared: “For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” (Romans 9:17) In other words, God chose him and established his rule over the land.

St. Augustine (354-430), who lived much earlier than Bishop Bossuet, wrote in his book, De civitate Dei, that monarchs have been placed on their thrones for God’s purpose, that is, for the benefit and good of man. ( The idea is expressed by the apostle Peter who wrote that the people should submit themselves “to the king, as supreme . . . ,” that is, foremost, highest in rank, most elevated and important. Therefore, he admonished his followers to “Honour [that is, obey, give homage, deference, distinction, and acclaim to] the king.” (1 Peter 2:13,17) The Greek word “honor” means “to attribute high status to someone by honoring.” God wants kings to be given high status, dignity, high regard, recognition and faithful obedience. “Above all things,” says Walter Bagehot, a 19th Century journalist, “our royalty is to be reverenced, and if you begin to poke about it you cannot reverence it.” ( Similarly, the people of ancient Israel were told not “to curse the ruler of thy people” or hold them in derision or gossip about them. (Exodus 22:28) “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be [the kings and queens of the earth] are ordained of God.” (Romans 13:1) Therefore, the apostle Paul also wrote, “Put them in mind to be subject to principalities [the sovereign princes or rulers of these territories] and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.” (Titus 3:1) Paul exhorted Timothy to pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life in all godliness and honesty.” (1 Timothy 2:2) That is, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Luke 20:25) In other words, the people were admonished to be good citizens and recognize these God ordained royal thrones. The whole point being that “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it [these important earthly thrones] to whomsoever he will. . . .” This exact phrase was repeat four times by the Prophet Daniel. (Daniel 4:17,25,32; 5:21) The conclusion here is that heavens have certainly been involved in and supported kings and kingdoms.


In conclusion, as the scripture states, “. . . By Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.” (Colossians 1:16) “. . . He [God] removeth kings, and setteth up kings. . . .” (Daniel 2:20) Since the beginning of this article, every scripture has stated that God is the author and creator of these royal governments. Mankind has straid from the divine creation.

On this subject, a very appropriate point was made in the Gospel of Mark, which states, “What therefore God hath joined together [what God created], let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9) This scripture was refering to marriage, but it can equally warn us that we should not fight against, and therefore prevent, what God ordained to continue to the end of time. In other words, we should support, promote and encourage the kind of government, the Lord recommended to us—the rule of constitutional monarchs. This is in our very best interests. That is, we can so very easily go counter to the will of heaven and set up inferior national governments (republics) that fail to bring out the very best in people. (See “Ideals” and “Advantages”) There is simply no better type of government than to have a royal king or prince, constitutionally bound, ruling for a more stable and a prosperous nation.

International law and justice have recognized the right of true kings and princes or their successors to continue to rule, or to be restored to their ancient patrimony so they can preside as rightful heads of state. Nevertheless, monarchy must be limited and constitutional as shown in the type of system the Lord originally established in the House of Israel (See “A Limited Monarchy was Instituted in Ancient Israel”) It should be part of an elaborate system of checks and balances in order to protect what is a most sacred, precious treasure, that is, freedom and prosperity. This is what we advocate that there might be a brighter, healthier and happier future for all mankind in general. (see: “Ideals,” “Advantages,” and “Sovereignty & The Future of Nobility and Royalty”) In fact, so important and special is the privilege of having a royal family of kings and princes that the Prophet Hosea lamented for the sins of Israel “for the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice . . . ,” etc. In other words, part of the curse of sin is to lose the great blessing and national benefit of having a royal family. (Hosea 3:4) Showing recognition and approval of monarchy, it is prophesied that there will be sovereign “kings” who will reign with “glory and honour” over righteous nations under the reign of the high king—the suzerain or “the prince of the kings of the earth” or “kings of kings” during the thousand years of peace and prosperity after the second coming. (Revelations 21:24; 1:5) For in the latter times, “. . . shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed . . . and it shall stand for ever.” (Daniel 2:44)

Islam also has Scriptures and Sacred Writings
that Support Monarchy

The Quran also supports and endorses monarchy as a divinely appointed institution by Allah, the faithful, for the good of his servants. It states that ALLAH favoured his people because “HE raised Prophets among you and made you kings, and gave you what HE gave not to any other among the peoples.” (5:21) This shows that kings are a gift of ALLAH–a present or benefit. Something for which one can feel favored or fortunate to have. Al-Fattini said in Tadhkira al-Mawduat (#182), "Every epoch has a king whom Allah sends in the semblance (ala nahw) of the hearts of its people. If He desires their reform He sends them a reformer, and if He desires their destruction He sends them one who shall cause their perdition.”

In an article entitled, “Monarchy in Qur’an and Hadith,” it states that the “hadith is a proof that kingship is an honored state, as Allah (SWT) would not propose to His Beloved anything dishonorable or disliked, and Allah knows best,” which is sustain by the fact that Allah gave Sayyidina Muhammad a royal house and kingdom and the title of king even though he preferred the title of servant. In addition, a number of times prophecy has mention that there will be kingship in Islam. ( The prophet himself wrote that afterwards, “. . . there will be kingship.” Al-Dhahabi cites the saying by Mu’awiya, “I am the first of the kings.” In other places it was written, “. . . There shall be a trying kingship (mulkan ‘âddan) for as long as Allah wishes it to be. . . . There shall be a tyrannical kingship (mulkan jabriyyatan). . . . There shall be kingship and tyranny. . . .” ( But above all, “The Awaited Mahdi (AS) Shall be a King.” ( Of the Mahdi, it has been written that he will be “a man named Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah and a descendant of the Prophet s.a.wassalam through Fatimah who will be the Leader (Imam, Khalifah) [King] of the Muslims, rule for seven years and fill the world with justice and equity after it had been filled with tyranny and oppression.” (Under note #18 Dr.Suhaib Hasan in his book An Introduction to the Science of Hadis)

In summary, Allah (SWT) praised monarchy and kingship by making it one of the greatest gifts He gave to a Prophet, making it synonymous with prophethood itself in the verse {And Allah gave him [Dawud (AS)] the kingdom and wisdom} (2:251). (www.sunnah .org/QA/qa2.htm) However, even though monarchy is given “an exalted status,” and “Allah shall give kingship to whomever He will,” as Sheikh Muslih-uddin Sa’di Shirazi wrote in the THE GULISTAN OF SA’DI, under Maxim 11, “May that prince [royal heir or successor] never govern a kingdom who is not an obedient slave to God.” That is, a true prince must be whole heartedly committed to a higher order of things–to the ideals that make people great inside and result in great deeds and good works in their personal as well as public lives. “For in his [the kings or princes] uprightness lies the uprightness of those who are governed by him, and in his corruption lies their corruption.” ([Al-Sakhawi] in al-Maqasid)
Much positive good can come from royal families who exemplify the greatest ideals of heaven, even the crowning or towering virtue of love and the good deeds that naturally flow from such a genuine caring for one’s fellow man.


Monarchy has Obligations

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his treatise forthrightly declared that constitutional monarchy or “kingship” is “the best of governments, ” even the “very best government . . . .” Why?, “because it is made up of oligarchy, monarchy, and democracy.” It combines the best of each to make something even better. His final conclusion was ratified by Pope Pius VI (1775 – 1799) almost in the very same words. (On Kingship to the King of Cyprus) ( /democ.htm) The point is:

In writing after writing, before and since [Pope Pius VI], various Popes heaped praise on the institution [of monarchy], pointing out its roots in the Kingship of Christ Himself. . . . No better modern witness to the Catholic view of Monarchy may be found then John Healy, Archbishop of Tuam at his death in 1918:

The character of Kings is sacred: their persons are inviolable; they are the anointed of the Lord, if not with sacred oil, at least by virtue of their office. Their power is broad – based upon the Will of God, and not on the shifting sands of the people’s Will … (Charles A. Coulombe, “The Monarchy in Australia”–see:

Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), a Doctor of the Catholic Church and Cardinal, wrote that monarchy is best if we have an ideal ruler, but this is highly unlikely. “A government tempered, therefore, by all three basic forms (i.e., monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), a mixed government, is, on account of the corruption of human nature more useful than [a pure] monarchy.” (De Romani Pontificis Ecclesiastica Monarchia, Bk. I, c. 1; cited in J. C. Rager, “Catholic Sources and the Declaration of Independence,” In other words a constitutional monarchy was specified as best.

Constitutional monarchy is a divine institution that has much to offer and benefit mankind. But undoubtedly the highest of all endorsements of monarchy is the fact that heaven itself is a monarchy. All monarchies, whether they attempt to or not, are, in one way or another, but a reflection of something that was created in heaven. It imitates the majesty and ideals of the kingship of God over all things. Thus divine graces or the virtues of heaven are consciously or unconsciously expected. For kings, in most cultures, were to be divine or godlike in character and represent deity.

Failure to fulfill divine mandates for righteous behavior has resulted in disaster. Jeremiah, the prophet declared to one king:

. . . Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, that sittest upon the throne of David, thou, and thy servants, and thy people that enter in by these gates: thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place. For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants, and his people. But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation. (Jeremiah 22:2-5)

Monarchs will be held responsible for the examples they give and the choices they make.

An Exalted Responsibility

In the 13th Century in England, Bracton and other legalists wrote “De Legibus Et Consuetudinibus Angliæ” or “On the Laws and Customs of England.” It was an attempt to describe the whole of English law and is characterized by F. W. Maitland as “the crown and flower of English jurisprudence.” In it, the king’s place in law is defined as follows:

The king has no equal within his realm . . . [he is] superior . . . . The king must not be under man but under God . . . . He is the vicar of God . . . no one in his kingdom . . . surpasses him in the doing of justice. . . . No one may presume to question his acts, much less contravene them. (


Certainly this is an exalted and remarkable position even if limited by law. But other writers make it even more clear that profound, even monumental, responsibilities naturally go with such a high and lofty status in life. Buddha once said, “Better than sovereignty over the earth, better than living in heaven, better than lordship over all the worlds, is the fruit of holiness.” (The Gospel) Why? Because as Confucius said:

Never has there been a case of the sovereign loving benevolence, and the people not loving righteousness. Never has there been a case where the people have loved righteousness, and the affairs of the sovereign have not been carried to completion. And never has there been a case where the wealth in such a state, collected in the treasuries and arsenals, did not continue in the sovereign’s possession. (The Great Learning)

And why? Because:

. . . by gaining the people, the kingdom is gained . . . On this account, the ruler will first take pains about his own virtue. Possessing virtue will give him the people. Possessing the people will give [him] the territory. Possessing the territory will give him its wealth. Possessing the wealth, he will have resources for [every] expenditure. Virtue is the root; wealth [or success] is the result [or outcome of virtue].

Thus we see that the sovereign has a great course to pursue. He must show entire self-devotion and sincerity to attain it, and by pride and extravagance he will fail of it. [For] . . . when the sovereign treats compassionately the young and helpless, the people do the same.” (The Great Learning)

Mencius, an ancient teacher Confucianism, boiled it down to this: “. . . win the people and you win the empire. Here is the way to win the people: win their hearts and you win the people. . . . The people turn to a humane ruler as water flows downward or beasts take to wilderness.” (Book of Mencius:

King Solomon, once considered to have greater wisdom than anyone or any nation on earth, wrote, “The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever.” He also wrote, “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.” (Proverbs 29:14;31:4-5) “Where the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.” (Proverbs 29:2)

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in one of his works wrote, “. . . Kings should govern subjects in such a way that they live according to virtue.” (De Regimine Principum, Chapter 16) And example is the way. Edmund Burke, a British statesman of the 18th Century, wrote a great truth. He declared that “Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.” This important principle has been recognized all over the world in different ages and in different cultures. Confucius admonished sovereigns, “Let your evinced [demonstrated] desires be for what is good, and the people will be good. The relation between superiors and inferiors is like that between the wind and the [tall] grass. The grass must bend, when the wind blows across it.” (Confucian Analects) Monarchs have a lot of influence.

To follow such ideals one must value people and righteousness as the greatest thing under the whole heavens, more precious than treasures, lands and gold. The Mauryan Buddist Emperor Asoka (270-230 BC) considered to be India’s greatest ruler, but is most celebrated or remembered for his elevation of Buddhism from a simple Indian sect to a world religion. He wrote to his son or brother–a prince of the realm:

. . . leaning on the Norm [the Law of truth and righteousness], honouring, respecting and revering it . . . being thyself a norm-banner [an example of great truth and righteousness]. . . [thou] shouldst provide the right [and the good for thy people and] let no wrongdoing prevail. . . . Ye shall slay no living thing. Ye shall not take that which has not been given. Ye shall not act wrongly touching bodily desires. Ye shall speak no lie. Ye shall drink no maddening drink. . . . [This emperor practiced what he preached and as a result] all the rival kings in the regions of the East came to the sovran king and said: “Come, O mighty king! Welcome. . . All is thine. . . Teach us.” (T.W. and C.A.F. Rhys Davids (trs.), Dialogues of the Buddha [Digha Nikaya, Part I I I, Volume IV] (London: Luzac and Co., 1965), Dialogue 26, pp. 62, 63-4.)


Such deeply held values could have major consequences in building magnificently a kingdom or principality that is safe and prosperous, healthy and well. But values are a matter of the heart or what we treasure deep inside. It must live within us and it must be feed to thrive and bear fruit in one’s life. Buddha is attributed to have had the following experience in enlightening two kings about what was really important at a critical juncture:

It is reported that two kingdoms were on the verge of war for the possession of a certain embankment which was disputed by them. And the Buddha seeing the kings and their armies ready to fight, requested them to tell him the cause of their quarrels. Having heard the complaints on both sides, he said: “I understand that the embankment has value for some of your people; has it any intrinsic value aside from its service to your men?”

“It has no intrinsic value whatever was the reply.”

The Tathagata continued: “Now when you go to battle is it not sure that many of your men will be slain and that you yourselves, O kings, are liable to lose your lives?”

And they said: “It is sure that many will be slain and our own lives be jeopardized.”

“The blood of men, however,” said Buddha, “has it less intrinsic value than a mound of earth?”

“No,” the kings said, “The lives of men and above all the lives of kings, are priceless.”
Then the Tathagata concluded: “Are you going to stake that which is priceless against that which has no intrinsic value whatever?”—The wrath of the two monarchs abated, and they came to a peaceable agreement. (The Gospel)

The moral to the story is embedded in the discovery of what was of greatest worth, and embracing it or valuing it so much that all lessor concerns melt into insignificance. Truth must prevail. People are more important than things and the purpose of government is to bless and benefit mankind.

Buddha wrote “Ten Royal Virtues” because he believed a good and just ruler creates a good and just people. They are paraphrased as follows:

  1. Dana: liberality, generosity or charity. It is the duty of the king (government) to look after the welfare of his needy subjects without creating attachment or dependence.
  2. Sila: morality – a high moral character. He must conduct himself as to be a shining example. It would wipe out bribery and corruption out in the country.
  3. Comfort Pariccaga: Making sacrifices if they are for the good of the people – personal name and fame; even the life if need be. By the grant of gifts etc. the ruler spurs the subjects on to more efficient and more loyal service.
  4. Ajjava: Honesty and integrity. He must be absolutely straightforward and must never take recourse to any crooked or doubtful means to achieve his ends.
  5. Maddava: Kindness or gentleness. A ruler’s uprightness may sometimes require firm, but kind and not overly harsh or cruel.
  6. Tapa: A good monarch does not flout moral conduct. He has restraint and is not sensual.
  7. Akkodha: Non-hatred. The ruler should bear no grudge against anybody. Without harbouring grievances he must act with forbearance and love.
  8. Avihimsa: Non-violence. Not only should he refrain from harming anybody but he should also try to promote peace and prevent war, when necessary. He must practice non-violence to the highest possible extent so long as it does not interfere with the firmness expected of an ideal ruler.
  9. Khanti: Patience and tolerance. Without losing his temper, the ruler should be able to bear hardships and insults and not give in—to emotions. He should be able to receive both good and bad in the same spirit and not over-react.
  10. Avirodha: Non-opposition and non-enmity. The ruler should rule in harmony with his people.

“The Buddha has emphasised the fact that the nature of the subjects depends largely on the behaviour of their rulers. Therefore, for the good of the people at large He set out these Ten Royal Virtues – ‘Dasa-Raja-Dhamma’ to be practiced by the rulers of men.” (“Dasa-Raja Dhamma” – Jataka Text) (

It is essential that it be understood that you cannot build something good and beautiful on something foul, ugly or mean. You can’t build something right on something fundamentally wrong. You can’t build a great nation on a lawless and ruthless people. A hate or crime ridden nation creates anguish, sadness and ruin for its people. There is no stability in this. Government must be based upon a sturdy foundation. Insurrection and anarchy are enemies of a civil and prosperous society. Some countries need a heavy hand to keep their citizens in line simply to avoid murder and the slaughter of innocent people. Such a people and such a government are in trouble and cannot effectively operate any kind of thriving government. Democracy, for example, needs a moral backbone as well as a literate and knowledgeable electorate. Without such, the results are dismay and disappointing. The citizens terrorize each other as well as fight the government which is merely trying to uphold law and order. But such a society cannot appreciate law and order, all they know is hate, revenge and violence. There is no quick fix in such a mess when the morality of a people sink so low. Such live like animals instead of humans capable of transcending the past and building a magnificent future.

On this critical subject, John Adams thoughtfully wrote in the 18th century:

We have no government [anywhere on earth] armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and [good, honest] religion . . . Our Constitution [the constitution of the United States] was made only for a moral and religious [meaning right and good hearted] people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (

Without virtue and a deep and abiding love for what’s right, there can be no liberty. Each person who makes up society must govern, sustain and control him or herself according to high moral values. These values must be taught, cherished and lived. Otherwise, evil wins and everything good falls to pieces. The future depends entirely on the moral fiber of the common man. And a high ideal and moral life depends on families composed of individuals who care. Here is where royalty can make a huge and moving difference. The answer or solution centers around tradition and what is taught in the family and therefore in the nation.

The Royal and Noble Family

The family is, by far, the most basic, the most fundamental and the most important unit of society. It is no less than the brick and mortar of civilization. Strong families equal a strong country. A nation or kingdom can only be as strong as its essential component parts. Hence, the family has been called the matrix, even the headwaters or fountainhead of all humanity. It can be a laboratory of greatness and cultivate beautiful and productive people, or alternatively it can be a hotbed for corruption and emotional pain and anguish. The point is, the family is extremely powerful for better or worse. It is important, therefore, to understand that anything which builds and enriches marriage and family life builds society, because it builds people and makes them greater human beings. As one great and well-known philosopher said:

There never was a tonic that would cure more social ailments than a healthy, happy home. There never was a greater source of social stability than an affectionate and understanding family. There never was a better way of helping children to happiness than the close confidence of wise and loving and responsible parents. (source unknown)

You can’t raise the quality of life in any community as a whole, above the level of the quality that exists in the families that make up that community. And a quality family life is wholly dependent on having a loving, united, caring couple who are at the heart and core of that family. Families are like factories. Strong families produce a good, quality product. Bad families produce inferior or unhealthy product. And this is serious, because the future of mankind is dependant on the children who will grow up and take over everything—the children who become the teachers and leaders of tomorrow.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

Educate your children to self-control, to the habit of holding passion and prejudice and evil tendencies subject to an upright and reasoning will, and you have done much to abolish misery from their future and crimes from society. (

Each mother and/or father with children can enter into the realms of divinity when they bless their offspring with faith and good character. Hardly anything is or could be more important than the family. Hence, the question, what kind of government was ideally presented for it? The answer to this question supports the whole concept of our organization. The most ideal of all governments for the universe, the nation, the church and the family is a constitutional or limited monarchy. A man should be the king of his family with the wise counsel of his royal and noble consort who has veto power. Note the express counsel given in the following:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.


Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. . . .

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-29, 33)

This kind of ideal has its match in governing a kingdom as well. Love, after all, is an inner quality. Mankind tends to take the man out of the slum to cure him, but really the slum must be taken out of the man, and then he will take himself out of the slums completely and forever. That is, an inner focus creates a permanent cure. We focus way too much on changing environments when we should help people change on the inside—to feel a sense of hope and a future worth fighting for. Then human nature changes and people choose to follow their higher selves.

The Divine Purpose of Royalty

Royalty needs to take the future of their nations personally. King James I of England said it well when he declared in his ascension speech to Parliament:

The righteous and just king . . . acknowledge[s] himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and prosperity of his people, and that his greatest and principal worldly felicity must consist in their prosperity. If you be rich I cannot be poor: if you be happy I cannot but be fortunate: and I protest that your welfare shall ever be my greatest care and contentment: and that I am a servant it is most true. . . . As the head is ordained for the body, and not the body for the head; so must a righteous king know himself to be ordained for his people, and not his people for him. (

The future of true nobility and monarchy depends on how those who have noble or royal status behave themselves. If the nobles and royals of this earth earn the respect and admiration of mankind, the future is bright and welcoming. If otherwise, things look ultimately bleak and unpromising. Hence, ideals must take a prominent place in the eyes of those who bear these ancient honors that a great and important heritage may be passed on and survive its many critics.

The opportunity to contribute to one’s nation by a good example worthy of emulation and admiration are staggering and far-reaching — more powerful than anything a politician can offer or even most clerics or ministers. The bright and shining example of a king or queen and their family cannot be estimated in its value and contribution to society. On the other hand, a bad example is also impactful on impressionable youth and forms deep impressions of right and wrong and what is ethical and moral. After all, if the royal prince can do it, so can he. A high moral and ethical standard must be upheld. It is the only real and lasting contribution possible.

The Ideal: The Embodiment of Inner
Greatness, Example and Service


The International Commission on Nobility and Royalty is concerned that only valid and genuine honors prevail in this world and that high standards are encouraged and upheld. (See the article: “Virtue and Greatness”) Nobility, after all, by definition means the quality of having an exalted character, ideals or conduct. Synonyms for nobility include brilliance, grandeur, grandness, majesty, magnificence, resplendence, splendor, stateliness, superbness, awesomeness, greatness, or being remarkable and extraordinary. This is the high duty and responsibility of the nobility and those who hold royal titles and honors reflecting such virtues as blamelessness, good character, being solid and dependable, conscientiousness, decent, fair, incorruptible, just and moral, respectable and compassionate. These ideals are not always manifest and obvious, but they should remain as guides to exemplify a noble life dedicated to all that is good and beautiful. This is one of the greatest contributions one could make to future generations. After all, to bear a title, such as, His or Her Majesty or His or Her Serene (meaning majestic or grand) Highness have lofty meanings and place upon its bearer an exalted responsibility.

Plato (427-347 B.C.) wrote that “monarchy is the one system of government where power is exercised for the good of all.” (
/Quotes_on_Monarchy) He considered it to be the best form of government in existence and the one most likely to operate in the best interests of the country. (www.lawandliberty
.org/pol_phil.htm) He also taught that kings should be philosophers and philosophers should be kings. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) took issue only with this last thought. He wrote in his treatise On Kingship that it is “. . . not merely unnecessary for a king to be a philosopher, but even a disadvantage. Rather a king should take the advice of true philosophers. Then he would fill his reign with good deeds, not with good words.” ( /Mathematicians/Aristotle.html) He felt that, “Kingship is the best form of government where it is true, that is, where the king serves the good of his people.” (

In a scholarly article entitled “The Perfect Prince: A Study of Thirteenth and Fourteenth-Century Ideals,” it concludes that the Sovereign Prince or monarch “must have many virtues:”

In fact he should be endowed with all virtues. The prince must be prudent. As a means of attaining this virtue, the prince should ponder deeply over the affairs of his realm, and abstain as far as possible from “tout les jieus et les recreacions et les esbatemenz” [in other words, not party or carouse]. He should be dignified, sympathetic and kindly, and truthful; and, if he has this last quality, he will not be boastful. He should also be energetic, vigorous, and ready to encourage pleasures among his people. He should also be just, for without justice the state could not exist. Yet justice should be tempered with mercy. The prince should be courageous, but should not become rash. Moderation in all things, especially physical, is very important. Yet generosity is not to be excluded—although it must be carefully guarded so as not to become a vice — because it wins the love of the people. The prince should be magnanimous and munificent in his undertakings. These virtues inspire the possessor to great things, and prevent discouragement and misfortune. He should love honor, but at the same time not forget to be humble, and be on friendly terms with his subjects. However, he should be at all times be so dignified and worthy of respect that his authority be not diminished. As a result of this attitude, the people should obey this prince and his laws. From this will come a condition of peace.

In his home, which should be such as becomes his station, but not too elaborate, the prince should be master just as he is in the state, but his wife should be his equal and well-endowed with “temporal, physical, and spiritual goods.” She should be such an one that she may share the prince’s secrets and help him with advise. Towards his children the prince should be affectionate, but should devote special attention to their welfare.

All men, and princes in particular, should love the common good and not merely their own advancement. The should desire only the welfare of the state . . . that their subjects may enjoy the highest benefits — virtue, knowledge and temporal goods. (Lester Kruger Born, JSTOR: Speculum, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1928, pp. 470-503, page 489-490)


The modern monarch’s greatest asset is his example and the example of his family as everyone expects a lot from them. People want to admire and look up to them. There is a deep longing not just for freedom, but a desire to serve and worship something greater than themselves. They want to believe in greatness and nobility. The following is a story about a hero, and we need heros, heros who have the vision of who they are and what power they have to benefit others. This story is about the son of King Louis XVI of France:

King Louis had been taken from his throne and imprisoned. His young son, the prince, was taken by those who dethroned the king. They thought that inasmuch as the king’s son was heir to the throne, if they could destroy him morally, he would never realize the great and grand destiny that life had bestowed upon him.

They took him to a community far away, and there they exposed the lad to every filthy and vile thing that life could offer. They exposed him to foods the richness of which would quickly make him a slave to appetite. They used vile language around him constantly. They exposed him to lewd and lusting women. They exposed him to dishonor and distrust. He was surrounded 24 hours a day by everything that could drag the soul of a man as low as one could slip. For over six months he had this treatment—but not once did the young lad buckle under pressure. Finally, after intensive temptation, they questioned him. Why had he not submitted himself to these things—why had he not partaken? These things would provide pleasure, satisfy his lusts, and were desirable; they were all his. The boy said, ‘I cannot do what you ask for I was born to be a king’ What a heroic response! The prince would not give in to all the pressures because he knew he had been born to be king! (Randal A. Wright, comp., Why Say No When the World Says Yes?, p. 98-99)


Great things are expected of royalty. And the public is disappointed and let down by when a royal stoops to behavior unbecoming their exalted status as part of the highest nobility of the land. During World War II, a Canadian Colonel, H. B. Brown, while stationed in Great Britain and tells the story of how the soldiers would go out and carouse, drink, fight and cause trouble—something he did not approve of. During one of these occasions while spot-checking to ensure his men did not create problems for the brigade command, he met a very intelligent and personable British soldier who stood alone, outside, waiting for his fellow soldiers, who he had observed a number of times refraining from the debauchery and tumult. He stood aloof. The Colonel asked him why he did not join in on the so-called fun, as he admired this young man’s resolve and commitment. The soldier declared that he was a member of the royal house of the United Kingdom and would not tarnish their name by lowering himself. This very behavior, the Colonel declared was true greatness and would result in an exemplary life worthy in the name of royalty—a word that means grandeur, dignity and nobility.

As Monsieur de Vattel, in his book The Law of Nations, stated that, “. . . there is a dignity and decorum that particularly belong to the supreme rank,” and it is “the virtues which constitute the glory of princes.” “He [the royal personage] cannot neglect them without degrading himself, and casting a stain upon the state. Every thing that emanates from the throne ought to bear the character of purity, nobleness, and greatness.” (Book I, Chapter XV, #188)

A king and his family’s greatest contribution is to love their fellow countryman so much that they show them an example worth following and involve themselves in good works that enrich the lives of the people. Such should diligently and vigorously avoid any situation that could be compromising or be misinterpreted to look like an act of misconduct or throw dirt on the dignity, honor and glory ofthe monarchy. In this the king or prince, queen or princess need to excel. They must also avoid like the plague or stay clear of any political involvements, entanglements, maneuverings or scandals. Their stock and trade involves example and charitable lives.

The ideals of chivalry embody inner greatness and nobility. Oaths of chivalry place upon its adherents requirements, that if lived to the best of one’s ability, would make members of the noble and royal houses thought of as among the best specimens of the human race. Knights were to show their worthiness by deeds of courage and heroism.


The world scrutinizes royal families and makes note of everything—especially everything that can be made fun of or that could raise an eyebrow. Interestingly, this special, or in some cases, bothersome attention, actually gives the nobility and royalty of the earth an enormous power, if used properly, to profoundly influence others. This is because royalty, in most cases, will not be ignored–they will be heard, considered and noted whether they like it or not. And example is powerful. Example speaks louder and more eloquently than words could ever express. It provides a message that is both loud and clear and that will be remembered for many generations to come. Therefore, the nobles and royals of this world have a great opportunity living as they do in a fish bowl or glass houses. May they shine and be bright and never forgotten for the great good they do.

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father,” no matter what it’s name, “is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27) Good King Wenceslas was noted as exemplary in this field of endeavor and was a great defender of his people as well. He was not actually a king, but rather a sovereign prince, that is, the Duke of Bohemia. “As the song indicates, [Wenceslas] was a good, honest, and strongly principled man. The song expresses his high moral character in describing King Wenceslas braving a fierce storm in order to help feed a poor neighbour. [St.] Wenceslas believed that his . . . faith needed to be put into action in practical ways” for his life to have meaning and worth and to be a great benefit to his people. (


Good King Wenceslas looked out
On the feast of Stephen
When the snow lay round about
Deep and crisp and even
Brightly shone the moon that night
Though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight
Gath’ring winter fuel

“Hither, page, and stand by me
If thou know’st it, telling
Yonder peasant, who is he?
Where and what his dwelling?”
“Sire, he lives a good league hence
Underneath the mountain
Right against the forest fence
By Saint Agnes’ fountain.”

“Bring me flesh and bring me wine
Bring me pine logs hither
Thou and I will see him dine
When we bear him thither.”
Page and monarch forth they went
Forth they went together
Through the rude wind’s wild lament
And the bitter weather

“Sire, the night is darker now
And the wind blows stronger
Fails my heart, I know not how,
I can go no longer.”
“Mark my footsteps, my good page
Tread thou in them boldly
Thou shalt find the winter’s rage
Freeze thy blood less coldly.”

In his master’s steps he trod
Where the snow lay dinted
Heat was in the very sod
Which the Saint had printed
Therefore, Christian men, be sure
Wealth or rank possessing
Ye who now will bless the poor
Shall yourselves find blessing

In other words, the truly noble ideals and qualities that make people great must truly live in the lives of those who bear great dignities, that we may have a better world to live in–a world full of goodwill and a great devotion to the common good of man. For “there is no more noble and beautiful occupation in the world than to assist another human being — to help someone [in need].” (Alan Loy McGinnis) This beautiful concept is echoed in the words spoken by every Thai king on the day of his accession to the throne, “We will reign with righteousness, for the benefit and happiness of the Siamese people.”


May the future show that the royalty and nobility of this world work unceasingly to provide a brilliant and shining light, embodying all that is good and beautiful, so much so that the “de jure” nobility and royalty may again reign in the hearts of their people; and those royal houses who reign may continue to reign, and be full of chivalry and inner goodness, valiant for the right and the good, that all may see it and admire them for what they do, what they stand for and what they say. The future rides on such things as this, and the future and all its glory goes to those who dare to make a difference, that is, become a major force for good in this world that will be remembered and never forgotten.