800 years of the Magna Carta

https://i61.tinypic.com/10qxr7s.jpg


800 years since the 15th of June 1215, when the first iteration of the Magna Carta was signed by King John of England on a field at Runnymede.

Remarkably, after 800 years, 3 statutes of the original Magna Carta (the 1st, 9th and 29th - according to the 1297 version) are still in force today, which highlights the importance of the document throughout the years. Lord Denning even mentioned that this is the most important document in constitutional history. Throughout the years, the Magna Carta went through subsequent confirmations, and essentially the 1297 version is the one in force.

Anyone's thoughts on the importance of Magna Carta? :book:

Cheers to the Magna Carta! :balloon:

The thing I find interesting about it is that legally speaking King John granted privileges to his subjects which implies that he or his successors could take them away, whereas actually the barons forced him to sign the document, not exactly at sword point, but not far from it. Either way, it doesn't sound like a legally binding constitutional document to me. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it can't function as one.

Well, it gave rights to all free men. How many men were actually free at the time? 5? 6?
I read that it was almost forgotten for a while as well until it inspired other people later.
I guess it deserves some credit for the inspiration, but it was apparently meant to give the noblemen more rights under the king, not exactly everyone and certainly not all the people who were literally owned by the noblemen.
Therefore whenever all men and women were declared free and got these privileges would seem like a bigger achievement than some lords wrestling power from the king for themselves.

A not bad analysts Husar.

However with all these things it's more the law of unintended consequences. Yes it's true that the original idea was that it pertained to the Lords and Barons, however the notion that no-one is above the law took it into new territory. No imprisonment without due process. Property rights. Trial by jury of your peers.

These are the building blocks of our common law system. One that we exported all over the planet. UK, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia......

At last we have decided to mark this historical event. Just a pity that the Septics got there 50 odd years earlier.

In addition to what Insane Apache pointed out, the Magna Carta has symbolic value.

I don't know much social history, but AFAIK England became a "free country" gradually. Economic conditions and changes in society were as important as legislation and legal rulings. There is no anniversary of England becoming a "free country," but the Magna Carta and 15 June 1215 are symbols of that process. The idea that a bunch of tough barons cornered a bad king and every English person was an unintended beneficiary just has more emotional appeal than "blah blah blah the black death blah blah blah decline of feudal system blah blah blah centralization of authority" etc.

You might compare it to a birthday. Is your birthday really more significant than the other days you've lived through? Well, it is to you if you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

The idea that a bunch of tough barons cornered a bad king and every English person was an unintended beneficiary just has more emotional appeal than "blah blah blah the black death blah blah blah decline of feudal system blah blah blah centralization of authority" etc.

---

You forgot Hitler.

I mean if you say it was a long process that is going to end where it began then isn't that one event of countless other which are part of the lon process automatically more boring/less significant than the events in countries where the change came more rapidly, such as the French revolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

You forgot Hitler.

I mean if you say it was a long process that is going to end where it began then isn't that one event of countless other which are part of the lon process automatically more boring/less significant than the events in countries where the change came more rapidly, such as the French revolution?

---

Depends if you're French or not. If you are, then Bastile day is probably more interesting than the Magna Carta. If you are English, or from a nation that traces its cultural roots to England, perhaps not. Yes, national considerations are definitely a factor in what people consider symbolic.

Like I said, its like birthdays. If it is your mom's birthday, you might pay attention. Actually every day is lots of peoples' birthdays, but that probably doesn't interest you. You can wish the English a happy birthday, or you can say meh. Either way, they will make exactly as much or as little fuss about it as they choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

Depends if you're French or not. If you are, then Bastile day is probably more interesting than the Magna Carta. If you are English, or from a nation that traces its cultural roots to England, perhaps not. Yes, national considerations are definitely a factor in what people consider symbolic.

Like I said, its like birthdays. If it is your mom's birthday, you might pay attention. Actually every day is lots of peoples' birthdays, but that probably doesn't interest you. You can wish the English a happy birthday, or you can say meh. Either way, they will make exactly as much or as little fuss about it as they choose.

---

I'm not trying to forbid them to celebrate it, I'm trying to put it into perspective and to understand how much of an impact it actually had. So your point is that they're just desperate to find something to celebrate and went with the first document because some people remembered that it existed a few hundred years later?

What I meant was that the change the revolution brought to France was probably bigger and certainly temporally closer to the actual event than the change the Magna Carta brought to Britain. The Magna Carta seems to have had a far more indirect and delayed effect that resulted from people applying it to very different circumstance than the ones it was meant for long after it was introduced. And apparently it was later on more of an underlying basis for other, similarly important events that also have value of their own and could be reasons for celebration. The French revolution obviously wasn't a perfect event either from a modern point of view, but led to a republic or two relatively fast and as a more direct consequence of the event itself, which dwarfed the chain of events coming after it. Who celebrates what is not really relevant for that analysis, or is it?

Yeah, I'm not saying you are trying to stop them from celebrating. I'm not saying your analysis is wrong, either. I was disagreeing with Insane Apache's idea that the Magna Carta is important because of its unintended legal effects. I think that the importance it has (which is probably overrated but still real) is as a cultural symbol rather than as a legal breakthrough. What you and I are saying isn't all that far apart, I think. More a question of what we emphasized than actual disagreement, but somehow we got at cross purposes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I'm not trying to forbid them to celebrate it, I'm trying to put it into perspective and to understand how much of an impact it actually had. So your point is that they're just desperate to find something to celebrate and went with the first document because some people remembered that it existed a few hundred years later?

What I meant was that the change the revolution brought to France was probably bigger and certainly temporally closer to the actual event than the change the Magna Carta brought to Britain. The Magna Carta seems to have had a far more indirect and delayed effect that resulted from people applying it to very different circumstance than the ones it was meant for long after it was introduced. And apparently it was later on more of an underlying basis for other, similarly important events that also have value of their own and could be reasons for celebration. The French revolution obviously wasn't a perfect event either from a modern point of view, but led to a republic or two relatively fast and as a more direct consequence of the event itself, which dwarfed the chain of events coming after it. Who celebrates what is not really relevant for that analysis, or is it?

---

One of the historical differences between England and France is that change in England has tended to happen gradually, through agreement and custom, rather than through revolution. It may seem like a minus to historians who like dates and huge changes, but it's been a big plus for the English people. The English state has never been perfect, but then it's never been that bad either, and it's definitely open to change without the need for violent revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One of the historical differences between England and France is that change in England has tended to happen gradually, through agreement and custom, rather than through revolution.

---

The system of common law allowed the Magna Carta to stand the test of time, because it "integrated" within the customs of the English kingdom.

It's important to consider that the Magna Carta is actually 4 different versions, with the first version in 1215, the next one in 1216 and the others in 1217 and 1225 and finally the "complete" version in 1297. The change was gradual and the Magna Carta integrated with essentially every other document that forms part of the uncodified British constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

One of the historical differences between England and France is that change in England has tended to happen gradually, through agreement and custom, rather than through revolution. It may seem like a minus to historians who like dates and huge changes, but it's been a big plus for the English people. The English state has never been perfect, but then it's never been that bad either, and it's definitely open to change without the need for violent revolution.

---

Well, there were one (or two) English Civil Wars, depending on how you want to count them. I wouldn't call the Long Parliament pro-human rights or egalitarian or anything like that. Still, it prevented absolute monarchy in Britain.The English didn't have an equivalent to the French Revolution because they had already thrashed out the whole absolute monarchy issue at pike point. Just because the process was gradual doesn't mean it was always nice.

As for the English state never having been that bad and definitely open to change, I guess that depends on what counts as "that bad" and "open to change." Lollards, Protestants, and Catholics all took their turns being executed for their beliefs, and for a long time (excuse me, but I don't remember how long) Jews were banned from England. To me that sounds like a government that is up to something bad and doesn't want to change it.

Nice is relative, compared to what came before England was consistently improving save for that stint under sluggard Henry VIII... and the psycho Catholic Mary... and I suppose the killjoy puritan Cromwell, but it was a slightly better track record than France and Spain and that's all that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

but it was a slightly better track record than France and Spain and that's all that matters.

---

Well, good. There I was thinking that it was horrible that as late as the 19th century a guy who lost his job and couldn't pay his bills might spend the rest of his life in prison. I didn't realize that as long as someone on the continent was doing something slightly worse, it doesn't count .:2thumbsup:

On the topic of the Magna Carta, we now have the Magna Carta Embroidery, ​an embroidered representation of the Magna Carta article on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_...An_Embroidery)

https://i61.tinypic.com/icpagz.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

Well, good. There I was thinking that it was horrible that as late as the 19th century a guy who lost his job and couldn't pay his bills might spend the rest of his life in prison. I didn't realize that as long as someone on the continent was doing something slightly worse, it doesn't count .:2thumbsup:

---

Oh please.

Spare me your "dark satanic mills" rhetoric, it's irrelevant to the point and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Oh please.

Spare me your "dark satanic mills" rhetoric, it's irrelevant to the point and you know it.

---

Well, I'm sorry if I offended you, but it was neither rhetoric nor irrelevant. Perhaps you didn't take it the way I meant it.

Me never saying that superiority to the mainland made the unpleasantries of the industrial revolution ok; that makes it irrelevant. Putting words in my mouth as a setup for a cheap moralising pot shot, that makes it rhetoric. That you said it with the smug tone of a mindless liberal arts student cooing over how morally inferior the people of the past were, that makes it insufferable.

Worse is that it was inaccurate:
one half of it was disingenuous as the Victorian prison system was a huge step up from the hanging-happy Georgian punishment regime.
The other half was a side effect of an event that was as inevitable as the black death. Industrialization was going to happen regarless of anyones wishes and the choice each nation faced was between adopting it's reforms like Britain or be outpaced by them like the early victorian European mainland: You either sucked it up and adapted to a new job market or you ended up with runaway unemployment and economic collapse. Either way the poor suffered as they always do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Me never saying that superiority to the mainland made the unpleasantries of the industrial revolution ok; that makes it irrelevant. Putting words in my mouth as a setup for a cheap moralising pot shot, that makes it rhetoric. That you said it with the smug tone of a mindless liberal arts student cooing over how morally inferior the people of the past were, that makes it insufferable.

Worse is that it was inaccurate:
one half of it was disingenuous as the Victorian prison system was a huge step up from the hanging-happy Georgian punishment regime.
The other half was a side effect of an event that was as inevitable as the black death. Industrialization was going to happen regarless of anyones wishes and the choice each nation faced was between adopting it's reforms like Britain or be outpaced by them like the early victorian European mainland: You either sucked it up and adapted to a new job market or you ended up with runaway unemployment and economic collapse. Either way the poor suffered as they always do.

---

If someone suggests that you might not have taken his statement the way he meant it, are you willing to consider that the person might have expressed himself badly and/or you might not have understood, perhaps even ask for clarification, or do you insist that the person was doing something wrong deliberately?

If someone apologies, do you graciously accept the apology, or do you itemize real or imagined offences in greater detail?

Well, I can't really blame you. I know what it is like to be angry, and I've done worse. However, I don't feel like discussing the matter further. It would just make you more angry, and then I'd get angry too. I admit my tempter isn't so good. I've already had to bite back some uncalled for comments and remember that your point of view is valid too, even though I think it is based on a misunderstanding.

Again, I apologize for hurting your feelings. I know what it feels like when you think someone has been trying to troll you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Oh please.

Spare me your "dark satanic mills" rhetoric, it's irrelevant to the point and you know it.

---

While I'm not sure there was any rhetoric in the res[ponse you are offended by, could you spare us the rhetoric of 'progressive change'. This is itself a false narrative, because it suggests an enlightened and 'progressive' aristocracy. Change occurred because change was fought for.

You gave three loose examples yourself of eras which don't seem to fit the 'progressive' 'step by step-forward' approach, and also spoke of the inevitability of industrialisation. Whatever you think of the 'inevitability' of this change...it is what accompanies that change that was actually the problem - there was nothing 'inevitable' about the Inclosure Acts (for example) and how they were carried through and enacted, nor the effect they would have on the population.

And...in terms of relevance. Is the point, perhaps, being missed? That the Magna Carta, the idea of the Magna Carta, and of the other bills of rights that underlie the notional constitution, are what allowed the country to compromise its way through its challenges? That the very idea that there are rights accorded, which the Magna Carta represents, is the notion that enabled things to be not worse.

The American constitution is based heavily upon these precursors. The French Revolutionary constitution looked to the USA and England as their models. Perhaps...if there had been such a constitution things wouldn't have been 'worse' in France.

In other words, the Magna Carta - the basic conception of rights that it represents - is actually the foundation of the country's ability to negotiate its way to 'progress' avoiding the catastrophic upheavals and the worst excesses of regal and aristocratic/oligarchic ideology. Does that not make it as historically relevant as the French revolution?

In retrospect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

In retrospect

---

Is that not...the nature of history more generally?