Posted on 06/08/2015 10:25:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Almost 800 years ago to the day, on 25 June 1215, some English barons and clergymen met on a field known as Runnymede and watched the king of England put the royal seal on a document known today as Magna Carta—a document limiting the power of the king and granting rights to ordinary citizens. It was one of those rare times in history, when brave men stood up to a tyrant and changed the world for the better.
In the early 13th century, a reckless and ruthless king named John ruled England, Ireland, Normandy, Aquitaine, and Anjou. Eighteenth century historian David Hume describes John as, “Equally odious and contemptible, both in public and private life, he affronted the barons by his insolence, dishonored their families by his gallantries, enraged them by his tyranny, and gave discontent to all ranks of men by his endless exactions and impositions.”
John knew that the barons disliked him, so he demanded that they place close relatives—a son, nephew, or brother—in his custody to hold as security. He also kept a few expert swordsmen close at hand at all times, in case one of the barons felt bold enough to challenge him to a duel.
An unsuccessful war against the French King Philip II in the years 1202-4, caused the loss of the continental provinces of Normandy, Aquitaine, and Anjou. Yet, unashamed and undeterred, for the next few years, John continued to act arrogantly and recklessly, culminating in a decision in 1209 to challenge the Pope’s authority in the matter of choosing the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope, Innocent III, quickly excommunicated him, creating a serious problem for a king who claimed to reign by the grace of God. Church bells could no longer be rung in England, clergy could no longer say mass for the general public, and men of the cloth had to resign their posts rather than serve an excommunicated king. Anyone who worked with John in any capacity was likewise excommunicated. The Pope held all the cards, so John had to concede to all of the papal demands, which included—to the shame of the English barons—granting authority over England and Ireland and promising to pay the Pope fealty and a large sum of money annually. Satisfied that John had repented, in 1213 Innocent III cancelled the excommunication and allowed him to rejoin the church.
One would think after losing such big battles that John would steer clear of conflict, but it was not the case. Confident he was secure on the throne and that the Pope would support him, John decided to launch another war against the French to regain the lost provinces. Naturally, he expected English barons to support him. The barons, however, refused to join his adventure, convinced that John was incapable of winning a war against Philip II. Simultaneously, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, assembled the English noblemen and showed them the Charter of Henry I, which enumerated the rights of ordinary Englishmen. Langton persuaded the noblemen that these rights desperately needed to be reaffirmed. David Hume wrote, “The barons, inflamed by (the Archbishop’s) eloquence, incited by the sense of their own wrongs, and encouraged by the appearance of their power and numbers, solemnly took an oath, before the high altar, to adhere to each other, to insist on their demands, and to make endless war on the king till he should submit to grant them.”
After Christmas, the barons as a group appeared before John and issued their demands. Hume wrote, “The king (was) alarmed with their zeal and unanimity.” He asked for some time to consider the matter and agreed to meet with them again after Easter. John, however, spent the next few months planning treachery. He felt he could weaken the barons’ resolve, if he could take away the support of the church. He granted the clergy a charter giving them the right to choose their own replacements for vacant posts, and he promised to lead a crusade in Palestine against the Moors. The local clergy and the Archbishop of Canterbury, however, despite the charter John granted them, were firmly behind the barons.
Two thousand knights plus retainers assembled in a village near Oxford to challenge the king. John asked them what their demands were, and, according to Hume, after they were delivered, he flew into a rage and promised he would never grant such liberties as would reduce himself to slavery. The knights, then, proceeded to attack the king’s castles. They had some success and marched into London, where they were received without opposition. Next they laid waste to the king’s park and palaces, and John, who was holed up in a castle in Hampshire with only seven knights to defend him, had to face reality—he might be killed. He quickly sent a message to the barons agreeing to their demands. A truce was called, and a meeting was held on the field of Runnymede. There, the king signed and sealed the document which reaffirmed the church’s right to elect its own clergy, and granted rights and privileges to the barons and ordinary people.
Some of these rights and privileges would later be brought to the New World and find their way into our Bill of Rights in slightly different language. Notable among these is section 39 which reads, “No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned, (etc.) except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”
John, however, had no intention of keeping the promises he agreed to in the Magna Carta. He pretended to go along with them for a while, biding his time until he could annul them. Fortunately for us, he contracted a serious illness the next year and died. He was followed on the throne by his nine-year-old son, Henry III. The English barons made sure that Henry and subsequent monarchs acknowledged the limitations on their power as expressed in Magna Carta, forcing Henry to put his seal on an updated version in 1217 and then again in 1225.
In this post-Constitutional age we live in today, in which the power of the “monarch” expands at the expense of the rights of ordinary men on a daily basis, it is good to look back on important milestones on the road to freedom. Maybe the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta will remind us of how difficult it was to obtain our rights.
All to lead to the modern day.
Disarmed citizens about to be ruled by sharia law...
It took another three centuries and two bloody civil wars before England got a king and queen equal to John in tyranny and a bit more than a century after that before they had to do the ultimate check and balance on another despotic king by beheading him.
They were showing documtnary on my local PBS station by Dan Jones he is good author he was talking about Magna Carta
This document was a fraud. It did nothing to advance transgender rights or prevent global warming.
Magna Carta is the basus of our own documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, as the founding documents of the Republic.
...to be followed by 800 years of unlimited government
It is an historic answer to those contemporary Academics, who have sought to dismiss Jefferson's postulates as purely theoretical; whereas, it is the claims of the Left to Utilitarian power, to force their fantasy, egalitarian wish lists, on the rest of us, that are purely theoretical. Jefferson was arguing from experience.
William Flax
Whatever happened to June 15, 1215?
Is the author stating that the Constitution, as we know it, is dead?...................
Very nice. Thanks for posting.
I went to England last year and got to see an original copy on display at the British Library in London. One fascinating story about how they were able to acquire one of their copies took place back some two or three hundred years ago. Somebody cleaning out an old house at the time went into some nook or cranny and out popped this copy that they were able to figure that it dated back to 1215 and that apparently copies of the Magna Carta were sent to locations across England at the time of its signing.
800 years of limited government. Well it was nice while it lasted.
Sadly in Canada, under Bill C-51, and the US Patriot Act, principles of the Magna Carta continue to be under attack.
It didn't do much for the 'ordinary citizen' despite what the author of this article says. The best put down of this document is to be found in "1066 and All That" by Sellar and Yeatman. Several articles of the MC are followed by the statement "except the Common People." In reality, it was a charter for the Ruling Class against the king, nothing more.
1066 and All That: A Memorable History of England, comprising all the parts you can remember, including 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings and 2 Genuine Dates. Extremely funny, but you have to know the real history to realize how cleverly screwed up the history is in this book.
Yup. Something somewhere went wrong. King George the III was the last British King to try to usurp power from the people (Parliament). Since then it is the Parliament itself, including the political system in the US, that has been corrupted. Perhaps the anti-Federalists were right.
Good post. Thanks
The loss of Aquitaine cost the English crown half its annual tax revenue.
That's true, but it was part of a process that eventually lead to the Declaration of Independence.
King John had about the same respect for Magna Carta (Great Charter) as Obama has for our Constitution. Hopefully the many parallels between the two men’s misrule and many failures will continue and history will treat his eight years with the same regard as John’s seventeen.
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.