How were monarchs viewed by their subjects in the Middle Ages?

Rightful rulers, they rightly felt they were bound by honour to obey their king.

>>1504709
Early or late?
Early, it was often that they were seen as warlords which were chosen by God, but still needed to prove their status and had to respect the religious powers of the time lest those forces, which were seen as being able to directly effect the world, would fuck shit up. See clovis and his striking dead of a soldier which took wheat from a priory, the story in which soldiers which looted an abbey were made to drown by the forces of god, or the story of the non-attack sevilla (some Spanish city, I can't remember) which was occupied by heretical Aryans, but held the relic of a saint which they feared would imbue the city with some sort of mystical edge.
As time progressed, it became moreso that the king was simply chosen by God and it was gods will that he rule. He with the clergy and nobles were the protectors and power structure which the people's God deemed proper and which kept them safe and on the right spiritual track.
If you hadn't guessed, I'm majorly using France/Franks as the model here.

>>1504709
Speaking a free city of the HRE here, the emperor was a travelling celebrity who occasionally arbitrated in local disputes. You could also delay judicial procedures by writing to him and telling the local justice system that you're waiting for his response.

When he came to your town, you provided lodging and food for him, and considered yourself a big shot. But effectively speaking he didn't do much and people didn't think much of it.

Would a peasant give a shit about a far away King or just their lord that they see almost regularly?

>>1506180
It just depends on the psychology of the day and how much religion plays into the selection of the ruler. If you think your king is just the top warlord you never see, then you'll likely pledge allegiance to your local ruler. If you think your king is chosen by God to rule and this is reinforced by the clergy then you're of course more likely to support the king.

How about monarchs of distant lands or monarchs they were at war with?

>>1507861
It feels like I'm helping to write someone's essay, but whatever, I'm drunk and need a break from apartment hunting in a language I don't understand.
Note back to my mention of the aryans, the heretical Christian sect. In the early middle ages things were more fluid in terms of power by God. The aryans were seen as having less or no power by catholic due to the errance in their beliefs, but nonetheless sacred artifacts of saints or piety and what not held power. So, in those days it would be a belief that your king held more sway with God than did others.
Don't hold me to this, but later on it would become more hardened in that others would simply be seen as lesser or heretical. This is a bit outside what I've studied, but that's what I would gather. It's sort of like what the abott said in southern France during the crusades (massacre) against the aryans 'kill them all and let God sort them out', let God determine who is righteous and let us fight.

>>1508681
I pretty much said the same thing twice, just extrapolate the sentiment from my previous posts onto this and that's probably the right idea.

I'm OP. Not writing an essay here. No more school for me. I've just got too much time on my hands and I want to know about life in the Middle Ages.

>>1509020
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC8JcWVRFp8
Most other history series from yale open courses are shit and annoying, but this is pure gold. Gets into straight history, the psychology of the times, the sociology and religious nature of times, and economics of the times.

>>1509158
Thanks anon. You're the best.