Take the 2-minute tour ×

Traditionally most royal families justify their rule by "divine right". When and how did this stop being the case for the British royal family?

(This question evolved a lot, check edits to get a better picture and understand the context of the first two answers better)

share|improve this question
Please ask only one question/question. If you have two questions, please ask a new question. Doubling up the question makes it difficult to answer, and to use as a reference. –  Mark C. Wallace May 23 at 13:41
I'm inclined to believe that is a question about history; the creation of the English constitutional system. –  Mark C. Wallace May 23 at 14:45

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

As mentioned already by Mark C. Wallace, one of the key aspects of the English Civil War was the divine right of the Monarchy.

The Bill of Rights Act 1689 established that the succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament and not by any divine right.

The following lines state that James the II abdicated the government and left the throne vacant when he fled the country.

Recital that the late King James II. had abdicated the Government, and that the Throne was vacant.

The Bill of Rights then went on to declare William and Mary the King and Queen of the United Kingdom.

Acceptance of the Crown. The Two Houses to sit. Subjects’ Liberties to be allowed, and Ministers hereafter to serve according to the same. William and Mary declared King and Queen. Limitation of the Crown. Papists debarred the Crown. Every King, &c. shall make the Declaration of 30 Car. II. If under 12 Years old, to be done after Attainment thereof. King’s and Queen’s Assent

Furthermore, the supremacy of Parliament was established after the signing into law of the Bill of Rights Act 1689. The bill set in stone the sovereignty of Parliament by making a number of things illegal, in direct reference to the actions of King James II.


The Bill sets out that King James the Second subverted the laws the the Kingdom in a number of ways that included keeping a standing army without the consent of Parliament, dispensing and suspending laws without the consent of Parliament and preventing the free election of members of Parliament.

For the purposes of this answer the following two parts of the Bill of Rights are most important:

Dispensing Power.


Late dispensing Power.


These two parts of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 establish that the Regent cannot legally suspend or execute laws without the consent of Parliament.

As so neatly summarised on the Royal website

The Bill of Rights Act 1689 set out the foundations of constitutional monarchy. Rights obtained by Parliament included:

Freedom from Royal interference with the law;

Freedom from taxation by Royal prerogative

Freedom to petition the King

Freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign.

The full Bill of Rights Act 1689 (Recorded as the Bill of Rights 1688) can be read at Legislation.gov.uk.

The Bill Of Rights act was recently amended when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was passed into law. One of the key parts of the Succession to the Crown Act was to allow the first born child to ascend to the throne regardless of gender.

More information regarding the succession of the British throne is summarised here.

share|improve this answer
+1 Thank you, I now understand that the family doesn't claim divine right, however the question was edited and didn't reflect part of what I was asking for. I'm also interested in knowing more about their ancestry (see history of edit or the added edit section in my question). –  Juicy May 23 at 13:44

No the English Royal family does not claim divine right. One of the key issues of the English Civil War was the Stuart claim to divine right.

Divine right was refuted first when they cut off the head of the last monarch to assert it, and then again in the classic Reflections on the Revolution in France. I don't have that work with me right now, but it very solidly makes the point that ultimate power in Great Britain is vested in law.


Further in the same work, Burke quotes the Declaration of Right,


Note with emphasis the limitations of the crown.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for the answer. However I was not referring to the divine right to rule or impose law, as I'm aware this was not the case for a while in the UK. I was trying to understand if their status (ie: royals and inherited fortune) was still justified by divine right. I guess your answer shows though that that is not the case. You edited out my main question though about their most distant ancestor, is that because the one available by quick research is Ealhmund of Kent and that is as far we can reliably go? Did any one on that family tree ever claim any legendary ancestor? –  Juicy May 23 at 13:37

Your Answer


