Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession

Paine establishes that mankind begins as equals by creation, and while distinctions of rich and poor can be explained naturally, they do not require invoking oppression or avarice.

Paine argues that the division of men into kings and subjects stands apart from natural distinctions (male/female) or moral ones (good/bad), and demands explanation of whether it benefits or harms mankind.

Paine cites scriptural chronology showing an absence of kings in early ages led to absence of war, and points to Holland and ancient patriarchs as examples of peace without monarchy.

Paine claims heathens invented monarchy for promoting idolatry, and Christian nations copied and improved upon this by treating living kings as divine, which is impious.

Paine asserts that exalting one man above others cannot be defended either by natural rights or biblical authority, since God expressed disapproval through Gideon and Samuel.

Paine argues that the biblical instruction to render unto Caesar was given when Jews had no king and were under Roman vassalage, thus it provides no support for monarchical government.

Paine shows that for nearly 3000 years Jewish government was administered by judges and tribal elders, with no kings except in extraordinary divine interventions.

Paine contends that God, being jealous of His honor, must disapprove of a government form that impiously invades His prerogative through idolatrous worship of kings.

Paine introduces the scriptural narrative that monarchy is listed among the sins of the Jews for which a curse is reserved.

Paine recounts how the Jews, after victory through Gideon, offered to make him king, but Gideon refused, declaring that only the Lord should rule, denying their right to bestow such honor.

Paine describes how the Jews, influenced by heathen customs and using Samuel's sons' misconduct as pretext, again request a king to be like other nations.

Paine shows that Samuel's prayer to the Lord resulted in God saying the Jews have rejected Him, not merely Samuel, and instructing Samuel to warn them of the manner of kings.

Paine provides Samuel's detailed prediction of how kings will conscript men, take daughters as servants, seize fields, demand tithes, and ultimately oppress the people, with God refusing to hear their complaints.

Paine argues that occasional good kings neither sanctify the title nor erase the sinfulness of monarchy's origin, noting that even David is praised as a man, not officially as a king.

Paine narrates that despite Samuel's reasoned objections and a divine sign of thunder and rain, the people refuse to obey and insist on having a king.

Paine claims that the scriptural portions about monarchy admit no ambiguous interpretation, and either God has protested against monarchical government or scripture is false.

Paine asserts that in every instance, monarchy is analogous to popery in religion—both being systems of false authority that corrupt the truth.

Paine argues that hereditary succession, as a claimed right, is an insult and imposition on posterity, since no one by birth has the right to perpetually prefer his family above all others.

Paine contends that while a man might deserve honors from his contemporaries, his descendants may be far unworthy to inherit them.

Paine argues that nature demonstrates the folly of hereditary right by frequently turning it to ridicule, giving mankind an ass instead of a lion.

Paine contends that those who bestow honors upon a man cannot justly say his descendants shall reign forever, since this unjustly binds future generations to potentially foolish or wicked rulers.

Paine observes that most wise men privately despise hereditary right, but it continues because people submit through fear, superstition, or because the powerful share the plunder with the king.

Paine speculates that if we could lift the veil of antiquity, we would find the first kings were merely chief ruffians of gangs whose violence and cunning made them leaders.

Paine explains that hereditary succession could not initially have been claimed as a right, but through loss of records and fabricated superstitious tales, became established as custom and later as claimed right.

Paine dismisses the English monarchy's claim under William the Conqueror as that of a French bastard establishing himself by armed force without native consent—a paltry and rascally origin with no divinity.

Paine declares he will not further spend time exposing hereditary right's absurdity, leaving those who believe it to their own worship.

Paine poses the question of how first kings arose, offering three possible answers: lot, election, or usurpation, each of which contradicts hereditary succession.

Paine argues that Saul's selection by lot established a precedent for the next king to be chosen similarly, excluding hereditary succession.

Paine contends that election of the first king established a precedent for future elections, and hereditary succession improperly binds all future generations through the first electors' single choice.

Paine draws a parallel between hereditary succession and original sin, arguing both wrongly bind all posterity to the decisions of their ancestors in ways that strip them of authority and privilege.

Paine emphasizes that the parallel between hereditary succession and original sin is the most apt comparison possible, revealing the inglorious nature of both doctrines.

Paine notes that no one will defend usurpation as legitimate, and acknowledges that William the Conqueror was indeed an usurper, so English monarchy cannot withstand scrutiny.

Paine shifts focus from the logical absurdity of hereditary succession to its practical evil: it opens the door to foolish, wicked, and improper rulers.

Paine argues that those raised to believe they were born to rule become vain and isolated from the real world, making them frequently ignorant and unfit when they assume power.

Paine identifies a practical evil of hereditary succession: when a minor inherits the throne, regents have both opportunity and incentive to betray the public trust.

Paine notes that when a king becomes worn with age and infirmity, the public becomes vulnerable to manipulation by miscreants who exploit his weakness.

Paine rejects the most plausible argument for hereditary succession—that it prevents civil wars—as entirely false, contradicted by English history.

Paine cites that since the Norman Conquest, thirty kings and two minors ruled England with eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions, proving hereditary succession promotes conflict.

Paine describes the prolonged and brutal conflict between the houses of York and Lancaster, with twelve pitched battles and repeated reversals of fortune spanning 67 years.

Paine details how Henry and Edward repeatedly imprisoned each other, with sudden shifts in fortune and parliamentary loyalty driven by personal matters rather than principle.

Paine specifies that the Wars of the Roses, beginning in Henry VI's reign and ending with Henry VII's unification of the families, consumed 67 years of bloodshed.

Paine concludes with a sweeping claim that monarchy and hereditary succession have caused immense bloodshed across human history.

Paine asserts that scripture itself testifies against monarchy as a form of government, and that blood will continue to accompany it.

Paine observes that in some nations, kings simply squander their lives without benefit to the nation, then disappear, while in others they have no meaningful governing role.

Paine notes that in absolute monarchies, kings justify their role as judges and military leaders, as the Israelites argued when requesting a king.

Paine points out the logical inconsistency in English government: the king has neither the judge's nor general's role to justify his existence and salary.

Paine asserts that republican government diminishes the king's function, making hereditary monarchy increasingly superfluous.

Paine notes that while some call England's government a republic, it is corrupted by the crown's influence and is better characterized as nearly monarchical.

Paine argues that through patronage and influence, the crown has swallowed the power of the House of Commons and poisoned the republican part of the constitution.

Paine contends that Englishmen rightly take pride in the ability to choose a House of Commons, and that when republican virtue fails, slavery follows.

Paine argues that the English king exists only to make war and give away offices, which impoverishes the nation and sows discord.

Paine scoffs at the salary and worship given to a king who merely impoverishes the nation, contrasting this with the greater worth of an honest man.