My Lion King Forum

Here's a little history: Before the Age of Enlightenment, absolute monarchs defended their right to rule through the theory of "divine right of kings", where they claim they are placed in charge of power by God and therefore can only be held accountable by God.

While the movie does not reference any particular god/God, we do have Mufasa's ghost reminding Simba that he has the right to rule merely because of his birthright, not because he is the most qualified candidate to rule an entire kingdom. Not to mention, a beam of light from the sky shines on baby Simba during his presentation symbolic that he is the rightful heir to the throne. Do you think the Great Kings of the Past had a hand in that? I noticed this argument being made through a couple of essays, books, and articles through a Google search results. So, what's your opinion on all of this?

Well , In this particular kingdom , there was only two possible candidates , since only two male lions lived. the thing is , One was appointed to become king , with nala as queen. Simba was the son of the king , thus , as the only male with royal blood , he had to become the king. As you pointed out , that's how it worked

then you mention qualification , but the kingdom was snapped out of mufasa's hands (and simba's) by Scar , who had time to try his hand at ruling. See how that worked out ? Everything died and even the royal family starved. So i guess simba was at least as qualified as scar when it came to ruling

Then the ghosts. Well , using the stars as fallen kings and allowing mufasa to become a ghost was genius. First off , it was a way to set up a scene where we saw simba and mufasa lecturing , then playing. We , as spectators were shown the soft side of the royal family and we became attached to them. That made the scene that comes not long after way more dramatic . Afterwards , something had to make simba come back to the pridelands , something strong and emotional which also affected the spectator. that's why mufasa was bring back as a ghost. (i do admit i am quite sensible to the part where mufasa's ghost explain to simba that he is the king , then vanishes)

In short , i believe that they just used the divine right , to set up some scenes and because in an animal kingdom , that would seem kind of natural. the first lion cub becomes the next king , it's smooth and easy to understand. I do not think they "defend" this way of ruling at all.

edit : this essay for exemple take it too far , it wouldn't have worked to have anything but a royal family in the plains of africa. It is just entertainement after all

I'm not sure that it really applies. Generally in a monarchy power is just passed down from generation to generation. And in The Lion King's story Simba is most qualified to run the kingdom anyway. Scar had absolutely no idea what he was doing. He had a childish and selfish mind. All he seemed to care about was power. He thought that he could do what ever he wanted just because he was king. The sad thing is that he should have never been king. I'm sure some of you out there will come to the defense of Scar and talk about how he was mistreated as a adolescent, and that Mufasa just was out to rub it in his face and could care less about Scar. To me I don't think that this plays a role in the movie. Though it is a good thought to think about. I just think in the case of the Lion King however Simba is the most qualified; while Scar clearly was incompetent.

Interesting. Whether they intended this or not, it's really something that can be read into it.

Old post. Oh well.

In a way, though, I have kind of thought about this, but as it has been said, with such a small group there aren't many other options, not to mention it's just the simplest and most intuitive for the viewer to grasp. If they'd made it a constitutional democracy or added a parliament, things would have gotten complicated really fast, and that's not really what a kids' movie needs anyways. Not to mention the whole 'Scar killing Mufasa for the throne thing' wouldn't really work, since in this version literally the only way for him to become king would be if Mufasa and Simba died.

That said, I am working on a fanfic where the inhabitants of Mufasa's pride actually do believe in the Divine Right of Kings and similar beliefs as a part of their spirituality, and I have to say that I have it function a bit differently than in the movie, at least regarding everybody's attitudes. They're a lot more dogmatic and strict about it, as I imagine a culture that believed in such a rule would be. In the movie, there's nothing that really says that the Great Kings sanction who becomes the king, necessarily, or that Scar's failure was because of their disappointment in the means he used to take the throne (which, again, I feel like would be the explanation offered by a culture who believed in the Divine Right).

Lastly, Mufasa seems to really care about his pride and ultimately takes full responsibility for them, and he teaches his son to do the same. He also believes in the Circle of Life which, if you think about it, countermands the Divine Right in a way as it teaches that the lions and antelope and etc. are all equal in the grand scheme of life, instead of asserting that the lion kings were special and unassailable in some way. If you look at cultures that used Divine Right (eg, ancient China), the monarchs tended to be a lot more assertive when wielding the power they thought they were entitled, because, in their eyes, it was theirs and it couldn't be taken away from them.

Really, I could see someone like Scar citing Divine Right as a way to keep his hold on the throne, but as a whole I don't think that it plays a major role in the culture of the Pridelands as depicted in the movie.

For me the theme that jumped out at me was responsibility, not divine right. Simba was born to be King because his father was King. He had to become King not because it was his divine right, but because as Nala said. It was his responsibility. In Fact Simba did not want to be King after Mufasa died, now granted he believed that he killed his father. However the actual reason Simba went back to assume the throne was not to claim his divine right, but instead to accept his responsibility.

[quote="SimbasGuard"]For me the theme that jumped out at me was responsibility, not divine right. Simba was born to be King because his father was King. He had to become King not because it was his divine right, but because as Nala said. It was his responsibility. In Fact Simba did not want to be King after Mufasa died, now granted he believed that he killed his father. However the actual reason Simba went back to assume the throne was not to claim his divine right, but instead to accept his responsibility.[/quote]
My opinion too.
Also I have one question: what's wrong with a good king? Where is the problem?
[quote="TheLionPrince"]While the movie does not reference any particular god/God, we do have Mufasa's ghost reminding Simba that he has the right to rule merely because of his birthright, not because he is the most qualified candidate to rule an entire kingdom.[/quote]
Isn't it what royalty is about? Also why saying that Simba doesn't have the qualifications to rule a kingdom? I mean yes he ran away, but two things: first he was manipulated and threatened by Scar that he was responsible for his father's death, and second after he saw his father's ghost he did learn his lesson and was ready to assume his responsibilities.

[quote="Biomac"]Also I have one question: what's wrong with a good king? Where is the problem?[/quote]I don't see a problem as long as The King is good, the problem is with the idea of one individual holding absolute power. Because if The King is bad it becomes a huge problem.

That was my point. Though even if I'm totally for democracy, let's remember that democracy isn't flawless too. I mean if the Peoples aren't good enough to make the right choices, then they can be easily tricked and dictators like Scar can be elected even in a democratic system.

[quote="Biomac"]That was my point. Though even if I'm totally for democracy, let's remember that democracy isn't flawless too. I mean if the Peoples aren't good enough to make the right choices, then they can be easily tricked and dictators like Scar can be elected even in a democratic system.[/quote]

We are on the same page then, because I am fully aware that democracy has it's flaws.