From: lawbkwn@buacca.BITNET (Yaakov HaMizrachi)
Subject: Divine Right of Kings, Magna Carta
Organization: The Internet
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:42:02 GMT


Unto all who read these words, most especially the
learned Hossein Ali Qomi, whose wisdom shines as the
Pleides in the heavens, greetings from Yaakov.

My most learned Lord Hossein writes of the
Magna Carta, and how if one reads it the
words do show the intent of the barons to maintain
their power in the face of the King.

It seems to me that, if I remember correctly,
(and I have proven many times how memory is
a most perilous guide and support.  Rather, it
is as the Prophet Jeremiah did describe Egypt:
"A weak reed, that if you lean upon it, it shall
break and pierce your hand") that even within our
period, the meaning of the words within the
document did change.  That what was written as
homein -man- in the Carta meant only noble at
the time, but in the span of 100 years, did
mean all men of means (and did so expand to this
day to mean all people of either gender).
So too, could Bracton write of it, speaking
of the king *in* his curia *in* his Parliment
making the law of the land.  In thus manner did
the document, designed to preserve the power of
the few against the King and people transform itself
into a symbol of freedom.

As to the matter of divine right of kings, little
can I add to the most learned and scholarly
treatment given by my Lord Hossein.  However,
I would, may Heaven defend me for my temerity, wish
to suggest that we may distinguish between the
perceptions of the people and the perceptions
of the nobility.  Did not Richard II turn back the
Peasant Rebellion by over-awing them with his
presence and giving his word, as king, that he
should investigate their grievances and give redress?

And did not the people believe the king capable of
curing scrofula with a laying on of hands?
Finally, in Shakespeare's play Richard II, does
not the Bard say through the mouth of Richard:
"Not all the waters of all the oceans of all
the world can wash away the balm of an annointed
king."

Finally, I should say a word on how we, the
people of the Jews, do perceive the rulers of
these lands in which we find ourselves.
The Kingship of Israel comes from the Lord,
and he promised it unto David and his sons
for eternity.  This, then, may we say is the
divine right of Kings.  Now, no king living
today does have the blood of David in his veins
(though some may claim it).  Still, they do enjoy
the mandate of Heaven, for as Jeremiah has said:

"Pray for the welfare of the city you inhabit,
for its fate is yours."  So too have our Rabbis
declared 'Dina d'malchuta dina.' 'The laws of
the secular kingdom have the binding force of
religious law.'  Only where the law of a monarch
of the Earth conflicts with a law of the King of
Kings, the Holy One Blessed Be He,  will we break the
law of our appointed sovereign.  For this is the matter
of the Covenant of Exile forged by God with
the Nations of the World, but, as this matter is
a deap secret, we write no more. Those who understand,
understand. Those that do not, do not.

Go in peace, and pray for the Judgement
of the world.

Written this 8th day of Tishrei, in the
year 5753

Yaakov