Skip to main content
Politics

Return to Question

Fix broken link; add link to Bill of Rights article; minor fixes.
Source Link
Steve Melnikoff
Steve Melnikoff
  • 13k
  • 3
  • 45
  • 67

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698English (UK)Bill of Rights 1689 makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine rightthe British Monarchy does not rule by divine right how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

If the English Bill of Rights 1689 makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

formatting
Source Link
gingerbreadboy
gingerbreadboy
  • 719
  • 5
  • 12

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right (see link)the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12926/when-and-how-did-the-british-monarchy-stop-claiming-divine-right

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation):EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right (see link) how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12926/when-and-how-did-the-british-monarchy-stop-claiming-divine-right

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

Adding details from comments to make the question more apparent
Source Link
gingerbreadboy
gingerbreadboy
  • 719
  • 5
  • 12

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right (see link) how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12926/when-and-how-did-the-british-monarchy-stop-claiming-divine-right

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right (see link) how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12926/when-and-how-did-the-british-monarchy-stop-claiming-divine-right

If the 17th century Bill of Rights Act 1698 (UK) makes clear that the British Monarchy does not rule by divine right (see link) how can the British Monarchy reasonably retain the motto "Dieu et mon droit" (God and my right) without drawing accusations of hypocrisy?

http://history.stackexchange.com/questions/12926/when-and-how-did-the-british-monarchy-stop-claiming-divine-right

EDIT (to bring the question up to date with the ensuing conversation): What strikes me as potentially hypocritical is on the one hand the Monarchy is saying (by agreeing to Bill of Rights Act) that they accept that they are not installed by the will of God (to placate an uprising), but then contradict this with every piece of stationery they issue. The Bill of Rights Act is an immensely important document for British constitutional law and the Monarchy (whom it sought to put under the rule of law) have a motto which directly contradicts it.

Tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/833808538958966788
Typo
Source Link
gingerbreadboy
gingerbreadboy
  • 719
  • 5
  • 12
Source Link
gingerbreadboy
gingerbreadboy
  • 719
  • 5
  • 12