/asatru/ - Asatru / Heathenry / Paganism

Heathenry created monarchism really so I dont get the point of this question, its obvious they are compatible and probably the best political system to go with it. Monarchy originated (at least in Western societies) from the warrior-kings that led the Germanic tribes. They were considered chosen by the Gods and when they were converted to Christ they were chosen by Christ. A quick repainting of the original idea

>>4482
The point of the whole question is to get some discussion going.

DID they actually justify themselves by being chosen by the gods? Considering the the origin of the word "King", in every Germanic language, it rather seems they justified themselves by being of noble ancestry, maybe even including the gods in it?

That would lead to the question how monarch would be chosen today. Some sources suggest they were elected, but how would that work out in a modern environment? I don't think we even know how long that position was valid.

>>4482
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries or during the reign of Henry VIII of England) the Catholic Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God," attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.

>It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority
>The king is thus not subject to the will of his people
>only God can judge an unjust king

This sounds like tyranny being justified by religious indoctrination.

>>4487
If you were to read more on the Germanic tribes and less on wikipedia you would know better. To the tribes, a king who did not serve his purpose or was stingy with his wealth would be killed by his own warriors and a new king would be elected, one with similarly divine blood

>>4493
Pretty much this. The king was more like a president except for worrying about being impeached he had to worry bout getting Rekt. In the sagas too it mentions how people challenged kings to single combat and won to become king themselves like Halfdan the Old.

>>4486
>the word "King", in every Germanic language

How did I never notice that every Germanic language uses a cognate of "king"? What an embarrassing oversight. I must have been thinking of "reich" and the related Romance/Celtic predominance of "rex/rei".

From what I recall, the notion that kings were chosen/selected/appointed by divine powers is a later thing, and that the more common claim among earlier Germanic societies was that the king was a descendant of Odin/Woden. I regret not making a note of the source, now, because what was most amusing was that the claims to Odinic ancestry continued several generations after Christianization in some places.

>>4486
>That would lead to the question how monarch would be chosen today. Some sources suggest they were elected, but how would that work out in a modern environment?

Oh, the other thing I recall was the notion that the fact of attaining kingship could be treated as evidence of Odinic ancestry. So it's pretty much circular, which I guess is no help at all.