Ohhhhhhh, so this is a Catholic thing then. Ok, -now- I get it. I couldn’t think of anyone in France who seriously wanted a royalty over there. Looks like they did indeed miss a few heads.
Catholic or Protestant, no monarchy is justified after Thomas Paine published “Common Sense”. Hereditary royal business just seems embarrassingly silly from that point on. And as for Martell, (good on him for fighting the moslems) does anyone believe God picked him and his descendants to rule France forever? Nuts.
And if so, why just France? Did God pick all the leaders of numerous districts in Europe?
No, Charles’ opinion matters less than any normal French citizen’s. They speak as ones who are free and decent, not as ones who believe they are divinely destined to lord over others.
God didnt choose these kings, and “divine right” is not a justification for ruling that has been generally accepted. It is purely a philosophical argument from the 16th century. No medieval king would have asserted his right in this manner, it would have been blasphemy. The king was king because there always had been kings, his legitimacy came from pre-Christian customary law, and the acquiesence of the people.
Paine, unfortunately, assumed that people would or could order their opinions through reason (”common sense”). Maybe some can, but certainly not everyone, not all the time, and some societies, arguably never.
You are demonstrating a gap in your education on this thread, a gap that explains but does not excuse the weakness of your analysis.
There’s nothing wrong with a constitutional monarchy. Especially an absentee one.
Seems to work fine for Canada and Australia.