Question

how does Thomas Paine characterize kings

Answer 1

Briefly: in Common Sense and later writings (notably Rights of Man) Paine depicts kings as ordinary, fallible men who hold power by birth and force rather than by merit or consent; he treats monarchy and hereditary succession as irrational, degrading, and dangerous to liberty. He uses ridicule, moral argument, and “common-sense” appeals to show that kingship produces corruption, abuse, and war.

Key points with supporting language:
- Kings are ordinary people, not specially qualified: Paine mocks hereditary right—“One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind no royal qualities.” (Common Sense)
- Their authority rests on force and superstition, not consent or reason: Paine contrasts government by consent with rule by birth and lampoons the idea that lineage confers wisdom or virtue.
- Monarchy encourages abuse and is harmful to society: he argues crowned heads become “crowned ruffians,” and that a single honest man is worth more to society than all the “crowned ruffians” combined (Common Sense).
- He presents republican government as the moral, practical alternative: Paine’s critique of kings is part of a larger argument that political power should come from the people and be limited to prevent tyranny.

If you want, I can give longer close readings of specific passages (Common Sense or Rights of Man), or gather a few more exact quotes. Which would you prefer?