Posted on 06/14/2015 2:51:29 PM PDT by Perdogg
Tomorrow, you can hardly have failed to notice, marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the document famously issued by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Most people are understandably a little hazy about the charter’s contents (it runs to 63 clauses and over 4,000 words). But they are aware that it was a “good thing” – a significant step in the direction of the liberties we enjoy today.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
ping
Most people who use superlatives when describing historical figures need to study more history.
John forced himself on wives and daughters. Richard forced himself on the sons. What a family.
As I understood it, the charter was for the rights of nobles. Only later was it interpreted as the rights of all free men. The nobles and kings didn’t give a farthing for the common man.
Is King Putt due the same sort of bridling?
His offences are many.
However, he is considered to have been an administrative genius.
The 2011 film “Ironclad” covers the aftermath of King John signing the document - not sure about the historical accuracy but if you like storming castles, siege engines and bloody mayhem, check it out.
Rumor or reality?
I have no use for “royalty”, but other than rumour what caused you to accuse Richard of being a homo?
In 1215, a sovereign king granted exceptions to his power.
In America 1788, a sovereign people granted exceptions to their powers to a government of their creation.
Treason, promiscuity, raising taxes as high as he could get them, ceding land to hostile foreigners: this guy would be the Democrat front runner for president in 2015. :)
The myth that Richard was a homosexual was invented in the 20th century. There is no historical evidence for it.
It was from various writings I’ve seen over the years and from a docent’s description of Richard’s life, which I saw in a special a number of years ago. I looked it up in Google and found the following. (I’m not trying to impugn him one way or the other. It’s difficult to “know” anything for certain about historical figures because their enemies generally outlive them. For example, it’s almost impossible that Marie Antoinette said, “then let them eat cake” as she would have been nine when she was supposed to have said it.)
https://www.google.com/#q=richard+the+lionheart+homosexual
He was a tax ans spend monarch. That’s why the barons and church revolted and forced him to sign the magna Carta.
Not quite. There were sections of the charter that expressly related to noble rights, but there were also sections that related to the rights of all 'free men'. Now, in 1215, most of the population was still in various of servitude (serfdom, etc), so it certainly didn't apply to anywhere near everyone, only a fairly privileged minority, but it was still a lot broader than just nobles. And over the centuries, the number of men who were 'free men' increased more and more and the rights granted by Magna Carta became more and more widely available.
It was from various writings I’ve seen over the years and from a docent’s description of Richard’s life, which I saw in a special a number of years ago. I looked it up in Google and found the following. (I’m not trying to impugn him one way or the other. It’s difficult to “know” anything for certain about historical figures because their enemies generally outlive them. For example, it’s almost impossible that Marie Antoinette said, “then let them eat cake” as she would have been nine when she was supposed to have said it.)
https://www.google.com/#q=richard+the+lionheart+homosexual
Actually, i believe the charter established the house of commons.
“And over the centuries, the number of men who were ‘free men’ increased more and more and the rights granted by Magna Carta became more and more widely available. “
Thank you for that. It adds perspective, which I sorely lack from my vantage.
John King
‘Ironclad’ amused me when I saw it, as somebody who lived in Rochester for some years - real effort had been made to show the castle accurately (and the ruins of the castle are still a very impressive site today and show the damage caused in 1215 very clearly), but none whatsoever to show the equally large and impressive Cathedral just next door, nor the town that existed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.