Posted on 06/19/2015 11:22:45 AM PDT by Sopater
He had to sign it to see what was in it
The lesson: Tyrants only obey oaths when there is real and credible force to back it up. Claire Wolf, our awkward time is almost over.
While the current administration is trying to eradicate the remaining vestiges found within the Constitution.
Nobody would ever want a Plantagenet as a next door neighbor. WhT a bad bunch
What would have happened if Richard had executed his brother John for his treason, instead of forgiving him? Would Richard’s successor(s) have agreed to and complied with the barons’ demands in 1215? Just a thought.
Our “Declaration of Independence and Constitution” were on the ragged edge of life support for some time after 1776 too. (Still are as a matter of fact) Freedom is not a given anywhere on this planet.
How’d that work out?
We seen the last of Good King Richard
Ring out the past his name lives on
Roll out the bones and raise up your pitcher
Raise up your glass to Good King John
BTT
Interestingly, there have been no subsequent King Johns of England. Although Portugal had a few kings named John, the name isn’t very popular for kings, even though quite a few popes had that name.
King John after signing the Magna Carta is like Obama after the 2014 elections.
Screw them both.
England had an unfortunate young Prince John who was the youngest brother of Queen Elizabeth II’s father and the Duke of Windsor (the guy who resigned). The young man had epileptic fits and was sent to a country estate to get him out of the way, he was an embarrassment to the royals. The King and Queen Mary visited him only rarely. They kept any mention of him out of the news. He died approx. age twelve of an epileptic fit. His only playmates were the children of his caretakers. There’s a documentary about him on You Tube.
Good one.
https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=JN.JZibleJxuu%2b%2bJsi0vY7j%2fw&pid=15.1&P=0
photo of young Prince John of Windsor (1905-1919) died at age 13.
"Though in form a free grant of liberties, the charter had really been won from John at the sword's point. It could not in any sense be looked upon as an act of legislation. He had accepted the terms demanded by the barons, but he would do so only so long as he was compelled to. He had already taken measures to acquire both juridical and physical weapons against his enemies by appealing to the pope, and sending abroad for mercenary troops. By a Bull dated August 24 at Anagni, Innocent III revoked the charter and later on excommunicated the rebellious barons.
"The motives of Innocent's action are not far to seek. To begin with, he was probably misled as to the facts, and trusted too much to the king's account of what had happened. He was naturally inclined to protect the interests of a professed crusader and a vassal, and he took up the position that the barons could not be judges in their own cause but should have referred the matter to him for arbitration. But, more than this, he maintained quite correctly that the king had made the concessions under compulsion, and that the barons were in open rebellion against the Crown." --The Catholic Encyclopedia
We ARE talking about the same pope that put the entire country of England under interdict because they had the audacity not to want Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, excommunicating King John and deposed him and absolved his subjects of their allegiance to him?
The one who told Philip of France to invade and oust John from his throne.
That pope?
Oh yeah.. I am sure he thought John was the paragon of all virtues.
he took up the position that the barons could not be judges in their own cause but should have referred the matter to him for arbitration.
They did. Innocent III told them to go away and stop bothering him.
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.