Magna Carta/ FOTL

[SpearGrass]

There's this really strong idea that kings in the middle ages were all powerful, or at least in theory. But that's not at all true. Firstly, no form of rule, however dictatorial, can dictate everything, even in an ancient city-state, and still less in a monarchy the size of England - there have to be rules for how things are done.

In the middle ages, those rules included what made a king a king - the king was the subject of the law, even though he could change it, provided he had the agreement of the leading men in his kingdom. Many monarchies were elective (France for example) and it was normal for the council of leading me (the Witan in pre-Norman England) to have to agree to a king being crowned, which is why Harald Godwinson was the lawful king of England, not William of Normandy, even though William was the closest relation to the previous king. The rule of primogeniture wasn't the determinant until a century or so later, and if it had been, William wouldn't even have been Duke of Normandy, being illegitimate.

In reality it's even less the case. If you just look at England from 1000 to 1500 you have repeated regime change: Cnud, Edward the Confessor, William the Conqueror, Stephen of Blois, Henry II, John was ousted by Louis (sortta), it was touch and go several times with his son Henry III, Edward II murdered, Richard II, Edward IV (twice), Richard III, Henry VII. The idea of the divine right of kings meaning kings can do what they like is post medieval: the medieval view (strongly held by Stephen Langton the main drafter author of Magna Carta) was that since God put kings on the throne they had a particular duty to be good and pious, and if they weren't, it was a Christian's duty to remove them. Article 61 is a manifestation of that.

But by the legal standards of the time (and now), since John was forced to agree Magna Carta by force, it wasn't binding, and the same problem arose with his infant son, which is why the standard form of Magna Carta is the one he made when he was an adult. Interestingly, one of the ideas appearing on the PLD website is the idea of vi coactus, "I'm only agreeing under duress so it doesn't count" which is exactly what John was doing when he put his seal on Article 61.

[John Uskglass]

Agree with Speargrass.

I'm currently reading Juliet Barker's 'England Arise' about the Peasant's Revolt, and the limitations on English kingship are quite surprising if you have a '1066 And All That' recollection of medieval history.

Even the idea that medieval states had a standing army is far from the truth.

Also, they loved to bathe in hot water back then!

[notorial dissent]

The main point with John at least was that he was a vassal of the Pope and as such COULD NOT do something that would interfere with the Pope's rights. The idea of letting the hoi palloi dictate to the ruler was just not gonna pass muster, and the whole "under duress" thing wasn't a goer either.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

I'm currently reading Juliet Barker's 'England Arise' about the Peasant's Revolt, and the limitations on English kingship are quite surprising if you have a '1066 And All That' recollection of medieval history.

Wait! If you can't trust it on medieval history you can't trust it on anything? Are you saying that there was no Pheasants Revolt? England wasn't ruled by Williamanmary, an orange? And there was no Spanish Armadillo?

Now I feel foolish.

[longdog]

I'm currently reading Juliet Barker's 'England Arise' about the Peasant's Revolt, and the limitations on English kingship are quite surprising if you have a '1066 And All That' recollection of medieval history.

Wait! If you can't trust it on medieval history you can't trust it on anything? Are you saying that there was no Pheasants Revolt? England wasn't ruled by Williamanmary, an orange? And there was no Spanish Armadillo?

Now I feel foolish.

But the first world war happened when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry. I saw that on a TV documentary... I forget the name.

[John Uskglass]

If it's any consolation, I believe that the distinction between Cavaliers (Wrong but Wromantic) and Roundheads (Right but Repulsive*) still stands.

*With the exception of the Levellers, Diggers and Ranters, who confusingly were Right** and Wromantic, obvs.

**Or possibly Left and Wromantic...

[Gregg]

The key takeaway from this is, the one Henry III signed and the Pope okayed didn't have Article 61.

[The Observer]

I'm currently reading Juliet Barker's 'England Arise' about the Peasant's Revolt, and the limitations on English kingship are quite surprising if you have a '1066 And All That' recollection of medieval history.

Wait! If you can't trust it on medieval history you can't trust it on anything? Are you saying that there was no Pheasants Revolt? England wasn't ruled by Williamanmary, an orange? And there was no Spanish Armadillo?

Now I feel foolish.

But the first world war happened when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich because he was hungry. I saw that on a TV documentary... I forget the name.

And there really was a Irish Potato Phantom that plagued Ireland for years. I think I saw that on an educational high school show called "Welcome Back Kotter."

[John Uskglass]

Having got further into 'England Arise', the notable thing relating to this discussion is the complete absence of references to Magna Carta by any of those involved in the insurrection. Remember this was a revolt sparked by a tax widely perceived as unfair and unreasonable. Contrary to the 'Peasants' Revolt' label, those involved came from almost all classes apart from the highest, and included many who were part of the legal system. They were by no means all unlettered and ignorant.

And yet Magna Carta was apparently seen as completely irrelevant, despite it being relatively recent, by the same rebels who were aware of the existence of Saxon charters.

Barker makes the interesting (if arguable) suggestion that Magna Carta is given importance by those constructing what she calls an 'aristocratic' narrative of the history of Britain's transition to liberal democracy, whereas those who see that transition as driven from the bottom up give it far less significance.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Barker makes the interesting (if arguable) suggestion that Magna Carta is given importance by those constructing what she calls an 'aristocratic' narrative of the history of Britain's transition to liberal democracy, whereas those who see that transition as driven from the bottom up give it far less significance.

Whilst it obviously is an important document, I've had the impression that a lot of the emphasis on Magna Carta comes from US legal minds allocating importance to it to attach historical legitimacy to the US legal system, rather than by the English. The Bill of Rights seems to be the act I've heard used as a founding act of modern English law in asserting the authority of Parliament to make laws.

(I realise it's more complicated than that, but Magna Carta has always seemed to be treated with a "but it was repealed" nod and a wink.)

[BoomerSooner17]

Whilst it obviously is an important document, I've had the impression that a lot of the emphasis on Magna Carta comes from US legal minds allocating importance to it to attach historical legitimacy to the US legal system, rather than by the English. The Bill of Rights seems to be the act I've heard used as a founding act of modern English law in asserting the authority of Parliament to make laws.

(I realise it's more complicated than that, but Magna Carta has always seemed to be treated with a "but it was repealed" nod and a wink.)

I seem to remember first learning about the Magna Carta in 8th grade (for you Brits, that's third year of secondary school, if I read the Wikipedia chart correctly) U.S. History class. I think we were taught basically what you just said, that the Magna Carta was the first document to limit the power of the monarchy and as such, influenced the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Our history teacher liked to joke that our class was a "pre-Magna Carta society" because he told us what to do and we had no say in it.

[SpearGrass]

Since Magna Carta wasn't wet ink signed, how is it valid?

[The Observer]

Since Magna Carta wasn't wet ink signed, how is it valid?

And I am willing to bet that King John failed to affix a red-ink thumbprint as well. Extra demerits if the MC was signed in view of a golden-fringed banner, thus placing it under admiralty law instead of common law.

[Pottapaug1938]

Since Magna Carta wasn't wet ink signed, how is it valid?

And I am willing to bet that King John failed to affix a red-ink thumbprint as well. Extra demerits if the MC was signed in view of a golden-fringed banner, thus placing it under admiralty law instead of common law.

He probably forgot nunc pro tunc; pretera praeteria; with full commercial liability; and notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent; ipso facto in pari delicto; trespass quaere clausum fregit; alea iacta est; creo quia absurdum est; and fere libenter homines id quod volunt, not to mention the UCC.

[Burnaby49]

Nor are there any provisions, anywhere in the document, for the establishment of Freeman Valley.

[exiledscouser]

And Article 82 (1)(d) of MC 1261 seems to have slipped from the pages of history, the one that allows insurance- and licence-free travelling in one’s yet to be invented private motor vehicle/ecclesiastical carriage etc.

[Burnaby49]

Please, try and use the correct legal terminology when discussing details related to the magna carta. The correct phrase, as used in a court filing by minister Catherine, one of Paraclete Belanger's flock, is ' ecclesiastical pursuit chariot'.

[John Uskglass]

The comments under the Bitchute video of The Taking of Public Library make you want to go and have a bath, but they do contain this gem:

Shelby36

Under magna carta you can own firearms......SO WHY DID YOU TURN THEM IN?

https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewt ... 62#p291362

The depth of ignorance there is flabbergasting. Aside from the fact that MC afaik doesn't make any reference to personal weapons, surely everyone's mental picture of the signing of Magna Carta involves armour wearing swordsmen, cos it was in Knights In Armour Times, innit; and a notable absence of guns?

[Hercule Parrot]

Since Magna Carta wasn't wet ink signed, how is it valid?

And if it was signed, that was indubitably done under duress.
Our Freetard friends would therefore insist it was invalid.

[Gregg]

Since Magna Carta wasn't wet ink signed, how is it valid?

And I am willing to bet that King John failed to affix a red-ink thumbprint as well. Extra demerits if the MC was signed in view of a golden-fringed banner, thus placing it under admiralty law instead of common law.

He probably forgot nunc pro tunc; pretera praeteria; with full commercial liability; and notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent; ipso facto in pari delicto; trespass quaere clausum fregit; alea iacta est; creo quia absurdum est; and fere libenter homines id quod volunt, not to mention the UCC.

and of course...

Pizza!!! Pizza!!!