How does this theory redefine 'divine right of kings'? It is no longer symbolic divine will, but literally 'alien authorization'?

Hello! You've hit the nail on the head with this question. This is indeed a particularly fascinating and subversive aspect of the "ancient astronaut theory." Let's talk in plain language about how this theory essentially "renovates" the old concept of the "divine right of kings."

---

First, we need to understand what the traditional "divine right of kings" looked like

Imagine an ancient emperor or king. How could he make the common people willingly obey him, pay taxes, and fight wars for him? Relying solely on armies and laws wasn't enough; he had to convince people ideologically.

The "divine right of kings" was the perfect ideological tool.

• Its core logic was: My power wasn't seized; it was granted by the gods in heaven, God, or the Heavenly Mandate (called "Tian" in China). I am the "Son of Heaven," the divine representative on Earth.
• Its characteristics were:
  • Symbolic Nature: The "god" or "heaven" here was a very abstract, metaphysical concept. No one actually saw what God or the Heavenly Mandate looked like, nor did anyone witness them personally handing the crown to the king. It was a symbolic claim based on faith and mythology.
  • Source of Legitimacy: It provided the ruler's power with ultimate, unquestionable legitimacy. Opposing me meant opposing the divine, defying the heavens.
  • Ideological Control: It was a powerful ideological tool, instilling deep reverence and obedience to royal authority in the populace.

Simply put, the traditional "divine right of kings" is like a company CEO saying: "My appointment was decided by the board of directors; you just need to listen to me." As for who the board members are or where they met, ordinary employees couldn't see or touch them – you just had to believe.

Then, the Anunnaki theory enters the scene, making this concept "literal"

Now, the "alien authorization" theory, represented by the Anunnaki, completely rewrites the above metaphor.

• Its core logic is: The "royal power" of early human civilizations truly did "descend from heaven," but this "heaven" doesn't refer to a metaphysical paradise or divine realm; it means outer space. The "gods" granting power weren't ethereal spirits, but living, flesh-and-blood, highly technologically advanced aliens – the Anunnaki.

• Its characteristics are:

  • Literal/Physical Interpretation: It treats myths as "poor imitations" of historical records. When the Sumerian King List says "kingship descended from heaven," this theory interprets it as the Anunnaki spacecraft landing on Earth and appointing the first human agent. Here, the "gods" are physically present "bosses" who could be touched and spoken to.
  • Agent Model: In this theory, the earliest kings and pharaohs were either "foremen" directly appointed by the Anunnaki to manage the humans created for mining, or they were outright "demigod" descendants born from unions between the Anunnaki and Earth humans. These descendants possessed longer lifespans, greater intelligence, and "divine" bloodlines, naturally qualifying them to rule ordinary humans.
  • Technological Grant: The "gods" granted not just power, but also knowledge and technology – like agriculture, astronomy, architecture (think pyramids), and law. This explains why ancient civilizations seemingly mastered advanced skills almost overnight.

So, returning to the company analogy, this new theory becomes: The CEO (Anunnaki leader) of the headquarters (Nibiru) personally flew to the branch office (Earth), promoted a local employee to project manager (King), gave him a set of advanced management software and production equipment (knowledge and technology), and tasked him with managing the other employees (ordinary people) to work hard (mine gold).

To summarize, what's the difference?

To make it clearer, here's a simple comparison:

So, your understanding is completely correct.

The subversive nature of this theory lies in how it drags a concept originally belonging to the realms of political philosophy and theology into a framework of "sci-fi history" or "alternative archaeology." It's no longer "I believe a god chose him," but rather "I speculate aliens chose him."

This is undoubtedly a very bold and imaginative reconstruction. Although it's not accepted by mainstream academia, it certainly offers a fresh and highly imaginative perspective for thinking about ancient history and mythology.