Magna Carta – 800 years on - Polidicks

[quote] This year, 2015, is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. It was on 15 June 1215 that King John, in the meadow of Runnymede beside the Thames between Windsor and Staines, sealed (not signed) the document now known as the Magna Carta. Today, jets taking off from London Heathrow airport come up over Runnymede and then often turn to fly down its whole length before vanishing into the distance. Yet it is not difficult to imagine the scene, during those tense days in June 1215, when Magna Carta was being negotiated, the great pavilion of the king, like a circus top, towering over the smaller tents of barons and knights stretching out across the meadow. The Magna Carta is a document some 3,550 words long written in Latin, the English translation being “Great Charter”. Much of it, even in a modern translation, can seem remote and archaic. It abounds in such terms as wainage, amercement, socage, novel disseisin, mort d’ancestor and distraint. Some of its chapters seem of minor importance: one calls for the removal of fish weirs from the Thames and Medway. Yet there are also chapters which still have a very clear contemporary relevance. Chapters 12 and 14 prevented the king from levying taxation without the common consent of the kingdom. Chapter 39 laid down that “No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or diseised [dispossessed], or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go against him, nor will we send against him, save by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.” In chapter 40 the king declared that “To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice.” In these ways, the Charter asserted a fundamental principle – the rule of law. The king was beneath the law, the law the Charter itself was making. He could no longer treat his subjects in an arbitrary fashion. It was for asserting this principle that the Charter was cherished by opponents of Charles I, and called in aid by the founding fathers of the United States. When on trial for his life in 1964, Nelson Mandela appealed to Magna Carta, alongside the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights, “documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world”. Chapters 39 and 40 are still on the statute book of the UK today. The headline of a Guardian piece in 2007 opposing the 90-day detention period for suspected terrorists was “Protecting Magna Carta”. [/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/02/magna-carta-800th-anniversary-relevance-david-carpenter[/url]

Here's how it all came to be, for those who don't know. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVFuMrAW-g[/media]

[QUOTE=Phil5991;46843060]Here's how it all came to be, for those who don't know. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICVFuMrAW-g[/media][/QUOTE] To be honest he wasn't that bad of a king, and he did more for England than his brother Richard did.

[QUOTE=Deng;46843282]To be honest he wasn't that bad of a king, and he did more for England than his brother Richard did.[/QUOTE] That may be true, but I believe John's reputation also suffered because he placated the french king with diplomacy rather than all out warfare to secure his ascension as king, many of his contemporaries felt Richard would have, and should have, faced the french instead.

I actually got to see one of the original copies of the Magna Carta at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA and it was quite cool seeing such an old piece of history

[QUOTE=Phil5991;46843620]That may be true, but I believe John's reputation also suffered because he placated the french king with diplomacy rather than all out warfare to secure his ascension as king, many of his contemporaries felt Richard would have, and should have, faced the french instead.[/QUOTE] Richard would have faced them head on sure but that's all he really did. His constant warring meant everyone remembers him as a strong king that didn't take shit from anyone, but they forget that war is expensive and he bled England dry before he died. John then inherited a kingdom tired of taxes that was also incredibly poor just in time for the French to move on Normandy. John could have handled things better for sure, but the odds were stacked against him from the start.

[QUOTE=Deng;46843282]To be honest he wasn't that bad of a king, and he did more for England than his brother Richard did.[/QUOTE] Hardly, John was a changeable tyrant who's only real accomplishment, aside from drunkenly murdering his nephew and rival for Richard's inheritance, was getting browbeaten by his rebellious nobles into signing Magna Carta. Take the way he turned on William Marshal, without question the single most loyal servant the Plantagenet's ever had. Or, of course, murdering Arthur of Brittany. He bled England much the same as Henry II and the Lionheart did, just without the excuse of the Saladin Tithe. [QUOTE=Phil5991;46843620]That may be true, but I believe John's reputation also suffered because he placated the french king with diplomacy rather than all out warfare to secure his ascension as king, many of his contemporaries felt Richard would have, and should have, faced the french instead.[/QUOTE] John tried plenty of times to fight Phillip Augustus, he just almost always failed. Or was betrayed by the nobles of Poitou. He managed to assemble a very powerful alliance of major non-Capetian western powers, including the Holy Roman Emperor, they just got beaten as Bouvines. And while Phillip worked his way across Normandy John more or less ignored it. Relief attempts stopped after the fall of Richard's magnificent Chateau Gaillard. Which was a major factor in noble discontent: at that time most English landowners still had ancestral territory in Normandy or Anjou. Phillip's rapid and utter victory made the Anglo-Norman aristocracy choose between giving up their Norman lands and serving John or leaving England and joining Phillip. [editline]2nd January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RainbowStalin;46843820]Richard would have faced them head on sure but that's all he really did. His constant warring meant everyone remembers him as a strong king that didn't take shit from anyone, but they forget that war is expensive and he bled England dry before he died. John then inherited a kingdom tired of taxes that was also incredibly poor just in time for the French to move on Normandy. John could have handled things better for sure, but the odds were stacked against him from the start.[/QUOTE] Part of the reason England was so broke was because the regent government had to pay the Holy Roman Emperor a ransom equal to about a years worth of royal income in return for Richard's release from prison. The Lionheart had managed to get himself locked up after pissing off the Duke of Austria at the Siege of Acre during the crusade. During Richard's imprisonment his weasel brother had been working closely with Phillip Capet to ensure John's usurpation of power. Richard forgave John when he got home and went back to what earned him his epithet, war. Which is, of course, how he managed to get himself killed besieging some pissant barony in Poitou

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;46843908]Hardly, John was a changeable tyrant who's only real accomplishment, aside from drunkenly murdering his nephew and rival for Richard's inheritance, was getting browbeaten by his rebellious nobles into signing Magna Carta. [/QUOTE] He was also a fairly decent domestic administrator. He spent much of his time in England, and continued the legal and economic reforms carried out by his predecessors. He continued granting out charters to towns, working on the stability of the currency, and while his continental campaigns were major losses, he had a string of military successes when in Ireland.

[QUOTE=Fuzzwaddle;46843796]I actually got to see one of the original copies of the Magna Carta at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA and it was quite cool seeing such an old piece of history[/QUOTE] Theres also a 1297 copy of the Magna Carta in the Australian Parliament which people can go see.

So it's pretty much a glorified rule book???

[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;46847174]So it's pretty much a glorified rule book???[/QUOTE] You just defined a constitution so yes?

I live about 5 minutes from that very spot, I was always told that it was signed though, didn't know it was only sealed and never actually signed

[QUOTE=Trumple;46848426]I live about 5 minutes from that very spot, I was always told that it was signed though, didn't know it was only sealed and never actually signed[/QUOTE] Well seals were useful considering most people couldn't write, it was also for security reasons as you would have had to forge the royal seal which wasn't just left around for anyone to look at.