The idea of divine right to rule comes from the entanglement of religion and government. The early Stuart monarchs believed that God gave them the right to reign. They claimed to be God’s vice-regent on earth, and the English monarch’s obligations to God included good governance.

In the lives of the Powhatan and people from Ndongo, the spiritual world played a significant role in the lives of everyone from the lowliest servant to those who governed.

In the modern US, the formal separation of church and state dictates that the right to govern in any capacity is decided through elections and civil authority alone.

In 17th-century Powhatan, West Central African, and English governments, men traditionally held positions of power. However, women could rule in certain circumstances. In Powhatan society women could hold political power if there were no male candidates in a certain line, like Queen Cockacoeske. In Ndongo, Queen Njinga was formally elected by noble families after her brother died, having indicated he intended for her to rule. In England, Queen Elizabeth I came to power in the mid-1500s in the absence of a male heir and presided over the country’s “Golden Age.” In the modern day U.S., women are commonly elected to positions of influence, but despite no legal barriers, a woman has not yet been elected to the presidency. Why do you think that is?

‍

Taxes help governments operate and pay for community improvements and defense. In 17th-century England and in Ndongo in West Central Africa, the government collected taxes, which were managed by the monarch. In modern day U.S., taxes are collected by local, state and federal governments.

In Powhatan society, tribute was collected instead of taxes. In this system of gift giving, families presented goods they produced to a town chief, who then presented some to the district chief, who in turn presented some to Powhatan. The items were then stored and given out as needed for diplomacy, entertaining guests or rewards. What could be a benefit of a tribute system as opposed to a system of taxation?

In hereditary governments, leadership is based on kinship, often passing from father to son. Power was hereditary in 17th-century English, Powhatan and West Central African governments.

In Ndongo in West Central Africa, power was generally passed through the male line, although noble families did claim a right to elect rulers. While power similarly passed through the male line, or patrilineally, in England, it passed matrilineally in Powhatan society.

In the modern day U.S., kinship does not guarantee power. Even though the modern U.S. does not follow hereditary rule, why do you think some families (like the Kennedys and the Bushes), have risen to political power?

Societies adopt different strategies for distributing power. In the Powhatan paramountcy, supreme chief Powhatan oversaw over thirty tribes, each governed by its own werowance (district chief) and towns within the districts also had their own werowance (town chief).

In Ndongo in West Central Africa, noble families and local authorities, called sobas, ran provinces under the kingdom’s ruler. The nearby kingdom of Kongo gave more control to its ruler, and local provinces were ruled by appointed governors.

In England, the monarch’s Privy Council communicated with local officials who governed in their communities.

In today’s democratic United States, the nation is divided into states, which operate under and sometimes independently from the federal government.

The Powhatan paramountcy was a unique Indigenous political structure in which one man was the absolute ruler of over 30 independent tribal nations. Although werowances (district and town chiefs) controlled their territories, paramount chief Powhatan could step in and overthrow decisions as necessary.

West Central Africans lived in ranked societies overseen by a monarch. In Kongo, the king controlled the state as an absolute ruler with an advisory council. Throughout most of the 17th century, Queen Njinga served as the absolute ruler of nearby Ndongo.

Seventeenth-century English monarchs, as both a political and religious authority, exercised absolute control over their subjects, often advised by their court and the Privy Council.

With modern American democracy, most governmental positions must answer to the people.

Historically, political rule has not always been separate from religious guidance. In the Powhatan paramountcy, the Quioquisock (priest) wielded a great deal of authority as a member of the political advisory council, working in tandem with local and absolute rulers to provide guidance. Similarly, Ndongo’s rulers in West Central Africa consulted ngangas (priests), on all important decisions.

The English monarch’s close Privy Council included the Archbishop of Canterbury, the leading churchman of the realm, who also directly advised the monarch.

In the modern day U.S., individual leaders receive advice from religious leaders, but there is a formal separation between the church and state.

In matrilineal societies, like most Virginia tribal groups, political power, ruling positions, wealth and status were passed through the female line. Men of a certain woman’s line usually inherited political positions, but in cases where there were no eligible male candidates, women would hold political power.

In West Central African and English cultures, power was patrilineal and so passed through the male line, typically from fathers to sons.