As best I understand, in medieval Europe the social hierarchy from king to peasant was thought to be a worldly reflection of the hierarchy of Heaven. To attempt to rise above your station would have been considered the cardinal sin of Vanity (Pride). So how would an archbishop, both at the pulpit and away from it, supply a usurper with the Christian version of the "Mandate of Heaven"?
Scriptures for the Usurper: Clergy and the overthrow of kings
- Thread starter cincpac overboard
- Start date
First and foremost, most pretenders had at least a fig leaf of a claim prepared, and at times, due to all the intermarrying, quite possibly even a solid claim for themselves worth pursuing. So it's not about raising one's station, but to get recognition of their due.
Now, the other half of course Is delegitimisation. It's not that you want to defraud others or rise above them, it just so conveniently happens that a plague/a drought/a military setback/the grumbling of some noble peers/a scandal or public moral failing/any other negatively framed event proves the current ruler no longer is enjoying divine favor, and so reeeeally ought to be substituted with the noble the clergy speaking sides with.
Now, the other half of course Is delegitimisation. It's not that you want to defraud others or rise above them, it just so conveniently happens that a plague/a drought/a military setback/the grumbling of some noble peers/a scandal or public moral failing/any other negatively framed event proves the current ruler no longer is enjoying divine favor, and so reeeeally ought to be substituted with the noble the clergy speaking sides with.
Any ideas which Biblical stories/passages a clergyman might use to demonstrate that indeed the former ruler was not worthy and fell from his seat by the hand of God? What is the Papacy typically doing during the early days of a usurper tenure?
It varies from place to place, and the idea of a divine hierarchy like that was something of a later invention written backward onto the Middle Ages by Late Medieval and Early Modern absolutists. Consider that England was ruled by William the Bastard, grandson of a tanner, while the Bohemian coronation ritual involved giving the king the sandals of his peasant ancestor Premysl and Polish rulers proudly claimed descent from Piast the Wheelright. Heck, as late as Napoleon that emperor tacitly encouraged rumors that he himself was illegitimate, since he thought a bit of mystery to his origins increased the appeal. Insofar as there was a taboo against usurping the monarch, it was more that the aristocrats didn't want to give their own rivals ideas about ruling over them. The general thrust of actual monarchies is really more "might/popular support make right, and we'll invent some legitimacy later if we like you."
So as to a cleric, the most obvious example one could point to would be the displacement of Saul by David at the hands of Samuel. Indeed, given the Papacy's claim to have a right to depose monarchs at the time (which would be tested during the struggles against the Holy Roman Emperor and then the King of France), the Pope would probably be quite supportive of a usurper if that usurper claimed papal backing to justify his usurping.
There would be plenty of referrals to Biblical examples of debauchery and sin for delegitimisation, and to exemplars for legitimisation. Much like the Pharaoh, he's no longer providing food and shelther from illness; this new Saul, he only cares about his sinful pride; while the other gets hailed as the humble Solomon, who only wants everybody's good, and often compared with awesome Roman figures for extra legitimacy. And has been said, the Saul vs David dynamic was an easy slam dunk, with the Pope or the most senior clergy becoming Samuel in the retelling.
The Papacy seldom openly intervened in such conflicts, instead signaling pretty clearly which candidate they backed under an official prtetense of neutrality in any conflict that did not origin from encroachment on Church prerogatives.
Last edited:
Very interesting. I always thought of medieval Europe as being a place of incredible snobbery, where nobles desperately hid any peasant ancestry. Why do you think Bohemian and Polish royalty emphasized their commoner roots?
I think biblical justification can be secured- but only if there are actual examples of people who need it, who actually do rise above their peasant station into military might and then need to justify their independent authority.
You’d possibly need European feudalism to be less lordly, and have a china or Byzantine style large bureaucracy with military/ local justice functions that’s open to individuals of relatively low birth, which can then snowball into revolt and dynastic replacement.
You’d possibly need European feudalism to be less lordly, and have a china or Byzantine style large bureaucracy with military/ local justice functions that’s open to individuals of relatively low birth, which can then snowball into revolt and dynastic replacement.
Medieval Europe covers a long time & a lot of land, it was certainly not a uniform period.
That said, if your mental image is what I think it's like, that's more of a Early Modern/Modern thing, but even that, pop culture like to massively overblow.
But, generally most of the middle ages was more "contractual." Snobbery did certainly exist though, don't get me wrong.
A more medieval analogy, but in modern words, of the philosophy they would have used would be that of a 3-legged stool. (How closely this analogy matches the historical reality is another discussion. This is about their interpretation.)
The 3-legged stool analogy even covers why lords & the Church should have the extravagant decorations, etc.
A lord who shows off how beautiful his castle is, is going to have more money to fund his army.
The Church is using the arts to display the beauty & power of God as close as is possible in our imperfect world.
I think perhaps by the later middle ages, 1400-1500, in England at least, evidence for class 'snobbery' becomes more apparent. I think in the Paston letters one writer complains about basically crass 'new money' while the sermons of the day constantly stressed the need to obey one's betters and give them their best efforts to serve. The only hope offered for a commoner being mistreated by a lord was to be patient and wait for the reward of the afterlife. Certainly the idea of social stratification and never rising above your seems to have taken hold. That's why I find the pride the Bohemian and Polish royalty took in their peasant backgrounds so interesting.
The Bohemian ritual fell out of use by the 14th century, anyway. The class stratification you note was something that set in with time—not just in William the Bastard’s kingdom but elsewhere. Perhaps part of the reason was that New Money (in the form of a mercantile class) became relevant again in the High Middle Ages, and merchants would often try to buy their way into the nobility.
I'd also say the rise of professional(-ish) armies.
When the lord/knight isn't required to potential sacrifice his life for the sake of the others in combat to keep his side of the deal anymore, the arrangement kinda falls apart.
[Added]
@cincpac overboard if you want to link this to religious values for a "mandate of heaven" equivalent.
Most fidelity oaths at the time were sworn with God as the witness. So, if a lord failed to uphold their end of the oath, in theory, God could send someone to remove them.
Last edited:
In the communal Italy of the 12th and 13th centuries ( but also in the following period ), we very commonly witness "bourgeois" families climbing the ranks of society and managing to obtain the role that is ideally associated with the aristocracy ( it must also be said that in the peninsula, the nobility ( understood as landed ) is a very nuanced concept, which varies from region to region, mainly the Italian aristocracy is urban, so it is easier for a rich bourgeois to buy the title ( and above all the horse, useful for war ) to legitimately define himself a knight ( this is what Dante Alighieri's family did in Otl ) furthermore it should not be surprising that some of the main pre-unification dynasties had humble origins ( see the Medici, who were bankers, as well as the Piccolomini in Siena, or the great commercial families of the Maritime Republics, the Sforza themselves etc ) another very common way in the peninsula to make a name for yourself is to make a career in the papal administration ( both as a prelate or in the army ) therefore the possibility that some nobles had origins unclear was quite normal
Good point on Italy--it's been mentioned in the past that urban life never died out there as it did north of the Alps, so the line between bourgeois and aristocracy was never too sharp.
Of course, royalist ideologies are also never as strong in northern Italy as they are elsewhere--republics and oligarchies dominate instead. A very far cry from the Sun King's absolutism.
Mainly I agree with your comment, except for two details, namely the oligarchies ( which except in the maritime republics ) disappear quite quickly in the region, being replaced by lordships ( in practice when a family manages to oust its rivals from the municipal government, and consolidates power over it, becoming de facto a small localized ""urban monarchy"" ) and then by the feeling of common belonging to a kingdom ( or in the Italian case I should more specifically say to the imperial ideology, which does not disappeared completely at least until Napoleon, but rather changed skin or was adapted to local circumstances, after all the Guelphs and the Ghibellines were just two political parties with a different way of understanding the imperial government in the region, with the first being more inclined to greater autonomy and respect for Papal prerogatives ( while remaining within the HRE system ) the second instead wanted greater direct participation of the central government in the region ( provided that locals were also included in state decisions ) but for the rest I agree with you, not even the Pope could hope to exercise a power similar to that of Louis XIV, given that he had to deal with the Roman nobility and the popular senate ( aka the SPQR, which for centuries was one of powers that balanced/opposed papal policies )
Did the Pope ever 'groom' a would-be Pretender to topple a specific foe, with prepared theological justifications for supporting the Pretender and delegitimizing the sitting monarch? Once installed, what would this 'client' be expected to offer the Papacy as payback for their support?
Technically such a scenario has happened many times, just think of the treatment that the Papacy organized for the heirs of Frederick II, supporting Charles of Anjou against Manfredi ( and subsequently Conradin ) for the Sicilian throne, and at the same time creating anti-Kings ( first Henry Raspe then William II of Holland ) in Germany to undermine the government of Conrad IV, usually the strongest weapon in the Pope's possession was excommunication, but much depended on the ability of the pontiff in question to foment/organize/ support a serious internal opposition against the sovereign ( or a coalition of external powers adverse to him ) and also how much loyalty ( or willingness to rebel ) there was towards said ruler, but normally the threat of using it ( or as in the case of John I's England, the use of the Interdict ) was enough to bring the sovereign and the Pope to seek a negotiation that would satisfy both