[Sca-cooks] Re: pre-Magna-Carta reigns

[elisabetta at klotz.org]

>> Someone mentioned this weekend in a discussion that John supposedly
>> put
>> the rights of the common man, such as "A freeman shall not be amerced
>> for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the
>> offense", and others, into the Magna Carta, assuming that would cause
>> the barons to reject it; and when they did not, he enforced them
>> just to
>> annoy the barons. I like it.

Yes and no. John is the most misunderstood King of England. He was brillant,
mean, generous, highly sexual, and you didn't want to cross him.

John took away most of the rights. The Barons forced him to restore them.

There was also many issued with the church that is underlying in the Magna
Carter. John wanted their money and their lands. There were periods 
when all of
England was excommunicated so no one could die or be born or get married, etc.
John tried to break the church of it's power over daily life. He failed.

The Magna Carter says that the church shall be free, ie no interference from
John. The next few rules are about heirs and inhertance. All of the rules were
aimed at fixing something that John did.

Due to the Saxon law (which had lots of freedoms for women) and the Pax 
Romana,
England always had more freedom then other countries, something that the
Normans had to fight against when they conquered. Pre-Normans English 
kings did
not rule as dictators. John tried to change that.

I always wonder what would have happened if the Roman Senate imposed something
like the Magna Carter onto Caliguia. Granted John wasn't that far gone, but he
had restrictions.

Here is the text of the Magna Carter:
http://www.britannia.com/history/magna2.html

:)
Elisabetta