AHC: Have sacral kingship be the norm

Have kingship be more sacral than actual ruling.

Here's a thought: have the Romans go the shogunate route eventually. Maybe Julius Caesar develops more of a cult around him and has a stronger effective claim to divinity, either in life or posthumously, and maybe he claims kingship in the east. Then, after his death, have some ambitious general sieze power but keep a 'divine' Julio-Claudian on the throne. Then, when the Empire collapses (you need it to still collapse if you want a modern world, in my opinion) have the various rival successor states either crown their own nominal Emperor who is one of the descendants of the Julio-Claudians, or else have them create their own rival sacralized kingships with claimed divine descent. Then, when those royal lines start to lose power, the successor states still keep them around shogunate-style because its their claim to legitimacy.

Bonus points if someone can work in a plausible Holy Blood, Holy Grail angle.
 

jahenders

Banned
It would require some faith system(s) remaining or becoming dominant in modern societies and a view in that system that the king is divinely appointed and interprets "god's" will. From there it's not a stretch at all to conclude that the king is, therefore, the ultimate judge.

In the US, for example, you could have a king instead of a president and he serves the role of pope, prophet, or chief priest of a belief system we all acknowledge. You might, then, have all manner of other governmental entities (Congress, etc.), but the king would also be the equivalent of the supreme court, interpreting things according to both written law and the will of "god."

On the other end of the spectrum, you could have something like Imperial Japan of the 40s, where the Emperor is revered as a god, but is considered "above" most earthly matters such that he has little role in actual governance.

How can this be the norm for modern societies as well?
 
Top