Editor's Choice
Which document contends that even a monarch must obey the law: Bill of Rights, English Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, or Petition of Right?
Quick answer:
The document that contends that even a monarch must obey the law is the Magna Carta, issued in 1215. It limited the powers of King John of England by establishing that the monarch must adhere to common law and respect the rights of the nobility and the church. Additionally, the Petition of Right, signed by King Charles I in 1628, reinforced this by restricting the king's ability to levy taxes and enforce martial law without Parliament's consent.
Two of the documents that you list directly deal with compelling the King of England to be in obedience to the laws. The first is the Magna Carta. This document was an agreement between King John and the barons in 1215. By putting his seal on it, King John agreed to limit the power of the monarchy in a number of ways which challenged traditional notions of the divine right of kings. Under the Magna Carta, English monarchs agreed to be beholden to common law and to respect the traditional rights of the nobility and the church. They could not pass taxes without the consultation and approval of the barons and the concept of habeas corpus became enshrined in law. In short, the king could not just make up laws as he saw fit and was subject to most of the same legal limitations that the nobility was.
The other...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
document that challenged the divine right of kings is the Petition of Right. This petition was made in 1628 in response to abuses of power by King Charles I. It was made to force Charles to abide by the will of Parliament when levying taxes and removed his ability to operate under martial law. It also reaffirmed the right ofhabeas corpus.
As you can see, both of these documents were intended to curtail the absolute power of the monarchy and force the monarchs to obey the law. In that sense, they challenged the ancient idea that kings operated under the will of God. It should be noted though that both of these documents met with limited success. In both cases, Kings John and Charles soon violated the conditions of these agreements and came into further conflict with the nobles and Parliament.
The Petition of Right challenged the Divine Right of Kings. It was prepared by the British Parliament and signed by King Charles I in 1628.
The Divine Right of Kings was a theory intended to ensure obedience (amongst all ranks of people) to the government, because in traditional thought, kings were descended from gods. Thus, because of their divine heritage, they were said to have the right to rule over all human beings. During the reign of King Charles I, however, a petition was sent by the English Parliament to address complaints that Charles was abusing his powers and was violating the laws. The petition was issued to curtail his powers. It stated that the king could not tax the people without the consent of Parliament, that he could not imprison the people without cause, and that he could not instigate martial law during times of peace. Charles I was forced to sign the petition, as he would not otherwise receive funding for his policies.
I wonder if your question is supposed to ask either A) which of the following did not challenge that idea or B) which of the following first challenged that idea. The reason I say this is that three of the answers that you give are events that challenged this idea.
The first of these was Magna Carta in 1215. This set some limits on what the king of England could do and guaranteed certain rights to the members of the aristocracy. So if you are asking which was the first, it was Magna Carta.
The Bill of Rights usually refers to the Bill of Rights attached to the US Constitution. This did not challenge the divine right of kings because it limited the power of an elected government, not of a king.