Magna Carta.

For those who may not get the title, it's a reference to this joke:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs [1]

This year is the 800th anniversary of the original agreement that became known as the Magna Carta (in fact, it was originally called the more apposite "Articles of the Barons"). Because it's a big anniversary we are noting it over here.

There is a suspicion that the PM's vigorous support of it comes from an embarrassing episode in the US a few years ago, when he was asked in a TV interview what "Magna Carta" means in English and he didn't know (given he went to Eton, which is one of our most prestigious private schools and he would have had to learn Latin, it's even more silly). After that he suddenly became very enthusiastic about the "large charter" and the upcoming anniversary.

Of course, by the end of 1215 the King had got the Pope to annul the first Charter. This prompted a war [3], which turned when John died. His son and successor Henry III was only 9, but his regent brought a peace by re-issuing a redacted version, with some clauses removed. At the final peace settlement, the new version of the charter was issued again, now called the "Magna Cart", to differentiate it from the shorter "Charter of the Forest" [2].

Over the rest of Henry's reign it was re-affirmed again a couple more times - basically when the King needed more money from taxes, he would need to reassure the barons so as not to prompt another rebellion. One time that didn't happen was in 1258, when taxes were raised because a now older Henry III had again run out of money, and the Charter was not re-issued. This led to another war with the Barons [4].

The last version of the Charter was the 1297 issue, which is still in English statute law (although most of the articles were since repealed, many in the next few decades). After that it was referred to less and less, and by the mid 15th Century (when the Wars of the Roses were starting), it was not really recognised by Kings. It was only really maintained by lawyers, and then when the printing press emerged and literacy improved it started to become more well known outside courts.

The Tudors, having won the Wars of the Roses, were in no mood to indulge the idea of rebellion or fetters on Monarchy, and so Henry VII and then Henry VIII ran roughshod over it.

By the 17th Century, it had regained popularity among the people, and was used by Edward Coke to argue legal cases and for it to be reaffirmed. He was up against James I and Charles I, who were firm believers in the Divine Right of Kings, and Charles refused to uphold the Charter or to accept the Petition of Right which was based upon it. Despite the concept of habeus corpus being famously by Coke used in the Darnell case, Monarchy was not to be moved.

So, we had the Civil War. Levellers, radicals who backed the Parliamentary side and could perhaps be seen as proto-socialists, cited the Charter but saw it more as a restoration of some Anglo-Saxon rights that the Normans had removed, along with a load of worse stuff aimed at keeping people in bondage to the barons and to kings. The Levellers were purged from the Army faction and marginalised, and Cromwell rejected the Charter completely (partly on the grounds that there was no King). Ironically, the one part of the charter excised in 1216 that he did uphold was having a council of leading peers to oversee his rule. But there was a growing belief - even if it was a folk-belief - that the Charter applied and guaranteed freedoms.

Republic lasted only a bit more than a decade, and was followed by the Restoration, which saw the Stuarts again try and take an absolutist position, but finding things didn't work so well. James II was forced to abdicate in the "Glorious Revolution" [5]

At this point there was serious political reform, and a transition to a constitutional monarchy. However, the Magna Carta itself was not an instrument of it, but key clauses and concepts from it or inspired by it were the basis of the Bill of Rights and other associated laws passed at the time.

It's here that there starts to be a real difference between England and the American colonies. Here there was debate and less acceptance of the Charter as a fundamental law, but in the pre-US, perhaps driven by the emigration of political and religious dissenters looking for more freedom, it became more of a totem.

In England, or as now the UK, we have some regard for the Charter, and in the 19th and 20th centuries it was largely legally annulled. But a few clauses remain in force:

I. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
...
IX. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
...
XXIX. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

The first is not really true - the Crown (through the government) has the power to appoint Bishops in the CofE. The second is an annoying anachronism as regards the City of London Corporation (which is the only local government not truly democratic and also wields very strange powers).

The last is, of course the most famous.

That's a potted history. But I wanted to look at some of the other provisions of the Charter...

[1] Tony Hancock was a British comedian who was at his height in the 1950s and early 1960s. His main 'character' was a slightly pompous buffoon. This is from the episode "Twelve Angry Men", which is of course inspired by the US movie featuring Henry Fonda. I find it ironic given that Magna Carta has inspired some of the heights of American constitutional history, that when we take inspiration back from a key icon of jurisprudence we use it for laughs.

[2] While the Magna Carta mainly deals with settling the grievances of barons and the church, the Charter of the Forests was the one that dealt with issues that commoners ("free men") had with the rights taken from them by the Normans, particularly over common forestry land.

[3] The First Barons' War involved one of those things we are told never happened: an invasion of England by a Foreign power. The French send troops in, as did the Scots, in support of the rebel barons. Prince Louis of France was proclaimed King of England at St Pauls Cathedral and at one point controlled about half of England. When the Magna Carta was re-issued, it was about getting the Barons to change sides and back the rightful boy-King, and eventually the French were pushed out.

[4] The Second Barons' War was really largely about a rivalry between Henry III and Simon de Montfort, but de Montfort was able to exploit the lack of a re-issue of the Charter in order to gather concerned nobles to his side. After initial success, de Montfort had captured the King and his heir and the first Parliament was held. The heir, the future Edward I, escaped and led a loyal army to victory, and de Montford was killed in battle at Evesham.

[5] A successful foreign invasion of England, by the Dutch Prince William of Orange. There were some English forces, but the Dutch fleet and a mercenary army were the main corps of the invasion. However, no major battles were fought as James' government crumbled.

Republic lasted only a bit more than a decade, and was followed by the Restoration, which saw the Stuarts again try and take an absolutist position, but finding things didn't work so well. James II was forced to abdicate in the "Glorious Revolution"

This is not really an accurate description of what happened after the Restoration. Charles II never really tried to rule as an absolute monarch, and it was his reign that lasted far longer than his brother's. James II was a bit more autocratic but it wasn't this which prompted him to be overthrown so much as his Catholicism. He wasn't forced to abdicate either, rather he fled the country to France and William was declared king in his stead. James never renounced his claim to the throne and made at least one attempt to reclaim it by force (the Battle of the Boyne and all that).

Some interesting clauses of the 1215 Charter (remember that this is written from the point of view of the King, and uses the Royal "we"):

Magna Carta wrote:10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan can be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

11. And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.

These were not retained in later versions. But here's the context. Jews were not particularly well regarded in Medieval Europe, and in England it did get quite acute. Each King after William the Conqueror reviewed on their ascent a charter allowing the Jews to remain. Jews were not subject to Christian canon law, which banned lending with interest as usury. So some were able to make a living as moneylenders. This of course made them wealthy, which led to them being targets of resentment on top of all the usual blood libel and other 'reasons'.

Kings also borrowed (or taxed) from Jews, especially because it was a way of getting money without having to get the Barons to agree to new taxes (the rest of the people were poor, and paid monies to the barons anyway). So they were considered useful when money was needed, but annoying when they wanted it back, with interest.

In 1218, after three issues of the Magna Carta, England introduced something until then not known - bringing in a Papal decree called Sicut Judais, it was interpreted that Jews should wear some means of identification, a badge. Soon all of Europe had followed suit.

In 1275, Edward I passed a law imposing a ban on Jews lending with interest, giving them a 15 year period to stop.

In 1290 the Jews were formally expelled. By that time only 2,000 remained. So it's no real surprise that the Charter clauses above weren't in force - they were moot.

Magna Carta wrote:33. All kiddles for the future shall be removed altogether from Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, except upon the seashore.

A "kiddle" is a fish weir. At that time, trade was largely by river, and merchants (represented at Runnymede by the City of London as well as by some sympathetic barons) didn't like to have to get around weirs. Of course, fish weirs were a great way to harvest fish. Many were set up by the Crown (particularly those on the Thames & Medway) but they were also commonly erected by ordinary local people.

The American colonists also took against fish weirs, after initial use. In 1768 Maryland's assembly ordered all on the Potomac destroyed and they were regularly removed over the next 60 years.

Magna Carta wrote:35. Let there be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm; and one measure of ale; and one measure of corn, to wit, "the London quarter;" and one width of cloth (whether dyed, or russet, or "halberget"), to wit, two ells within the selvages; of weights also let it be as of measures.

A nice bit of weights and measures. Sadly to this day this is not upheld in quite the same way.

Magna Carta wrote:7. A widow, after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of that husband; and she may remain in the house of her husband for forty days after his death, within which time her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she prefers to live without a husband; provided always that she gives security not to marry without our consent, if she holds of us, or without the consent of the lord of whom she holds, if she holds of another.

54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of any other than her husband.

These are the main mentions of women. The others concern taxation of barons and knights to pay for the wedding of a King's daughter - only once, for the eldest daughter.

On the one hand it's relatively progressive not to delay a widow getting her inheritance, and to not force her to remarry. On the other, it's really a sign of the times and the document that 7 is one of many clauses about inheritance (basically the King could before then decide that he could hold on to the estates of the deceased and pilfer from them).

Clause 54 is of course in today's world totally unreasonable. There is an explanation, though: If accused by a man, one could opt for trial by combat. That didn't apply if a woman was the accuser. So it is thought that there was an issue of this being taken advantage of, with 'fallacious' accusations of murder made via a woman.

Or it could just be simply the usual not weighing a woman's testimony as highly as that of a man.

[quote="Magna Carta"]61. Since, moreover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them incomplete and firm endurance for ever, we give and grant to them the underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five-and-twenty barons of the kingdom, whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything beat fault toward any one, or shall have broken any one of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense be notified to four barons of the foresaid five-and-twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days, reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm), the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five-and-twenty barons, and those five-and-twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole land, distrain and distress us in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations toward us. And let whoever in the country desires it, swear to obey the orders of the said five-and-twenty barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters, and along with them, to molest us to the utmost of his power; and we publicly and freely grant leave to every one who wishes to swear, and we shall never forbid any one to swear. All those, moreover, in the land who of themselves and of their own accord are unwilling to swear to the twenty-five to help them inconstraining and molesting us, we shall by our command compel the same to swear to the effect aforesaid. And if any one of the five-and-twenty barons shall have died or departed from the land, or be incapacitated in any other manner which would prevent the foresaid provisions being carried out, those of the said twenty-five barons who are left shall choose another in his place according to their own judgment, and he shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Further, in all matters, the execution of which is intrusted to these twenty-five barons, if perchance these twenty-five are present, that which the majority of those present ordain or command shall be held as fixed and established, exactly as if the whole twenty-five had concurred in this; and the said twenty-five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all that is aforesaid, and cause it to be observed with all their might. And we shall procure nothing from any one, directly or indirectly, whereby any part of these concessions and liberties might be revoked or diminished; and if any such thing has been procured, let it be void and null, and we shall never use it personally or by another.[quote]

This is the one that was never implemented, and was also not carried over into later versions.

Sassenach wrote:

Republic lasted only a bit more than a decade, and was followed by the Restoration, which saw the Stuarts again try and take an absolutist position, but finding things didn't work so well. James II was forced to abdicate in the "Glorious Revolution"

This is not really an accurate description of what happened after the Restoration. Charles II never really tried to rule as an absolute monarch, and it was his reign that lasted far longer than his brother's. James II was a bit more autocratic but it wasn't this which prompted him to be overthrown so much as his Catholicism. He wasn't forced to abdicate either, rather he fled the country to France and William was declared king in his stead. James never renounced his claim to the throne and made at least one attempt to reclaim it by force (the Battle of the Boyne and all that).

Correct on the abdication - he fled instead. But he was pretty much forced to by the fact that the Orange invasion was popular and heading to London.

But Charles II did subscribe to divine rights and did clash with Parliament over his decisions to impose or repeal law unilaterally, and his warmongering (which of course needed financing through taxes). There was also the "Clarendon Code" a series of acts restricting religious freedoms for dissenters from the CofE (which were more supported by Charles than by Lord Clarendon) which included and violations of Clause 1 of the Charter where they imposed rules upon the clergy.

James' Catholicism was an issue, but so was the treatment exacted towards suspected supporters of the Monmouth Rebellion (Monmouth was Geoffrey, the eldest son of Charles II but not legitimate). cf: Judge Jeffries and his Bloody Assizes.

Sure, but Monmouth's rebellion was simply an attempt to supplant James and replace him with a Protestant king. It was an early forerunner to the Glorious Revolution and it was only possible because of the strife brought about by having a Catholic king. I'm pretty sure Monmouth was also called James btw.

The point is that it's inaccurate to suggest that the latter Stuarts failed because of their attempts to row back on Magna Carta rights. Religion was a far bigger influence.

I was not intending to suggest that their disdain for Magna Carta led to the Glorious Revolution.

It is more that the Charter was an influence in the post-Stuart settlement.

Because kings from 1215 onwards had ignored, reduced, repudiated and violated it, they are by no means special.

There is this book published in the United States that's "written by" John Stewart, of the Daily Show: America the Book: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. There is a section on the Magna Carta and if I find it I will gladly post it, as it is quite hilarious...

http://www.amazon.com/Daily-Stewart-Presents-America-Teachers/dp/0446691860/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1423782413

Seems that it's a "teacher's edition" or something, now. But as soon as I can find it I'll quote a couple of the bits on the Magna Carta that were funny as shit; hopefully they won't sue me for it. As for your main question(s) I'll do that at the same time.

Believe it or not we discussed this in high school. Perhaps not in this detail, but it was more than just "mentioned offhand" let's put it that way. There was a copy (or a copy of a copy) of the document in the Rotunda (the entrance/domey-thingy) of the Capitol Building in Washington. I think I saw it that one time my cousins and I went to Washington together, but that was a hell of a long time ago.

As memory fails, and Wikipedia is not loading for some reason, by "Post Stuart Settlement" do you mean the "invitation" by Parliament (I assume via the passage of an Act of Succession of some sort?) to Elector-Prince George VI of Hanover, to be King George I of Great Britain? (The one who could not speak English and therefore deal with the increasingly-rambunctious Whigs in the House of Commons, giving rise to the then-unofficial position of prime minister?) Or am I totally wrong about that? Don't want to get off on a tangent, but I was wondering about that, and the net is being particularly naughty and not accessing Wikipedia...

There is a suspicion that the PM's vigorous support of it comes from an embarrassing episode in the US a few years ago, when he was asked in a TV interview what "Magna Carta" means in English and he didn't know (given he went to Eton, which is one of our most prestigious private schools and he would have had to learn Latin, it's even more silly). After that he suddenly became very enthusiastic about the "large charter" and the upcoming anniversary.

LOL. LIke I said, I went to a public (US english = "state-run") school in the United States and even WE were taught that it meant "Great Charter" in Latin. Do they let Americans with dual citizenship stand for Parliament? What with all the information the two of you have armed me with, perhaps I should be....Ok maybe not.

It's here that there starts to be a real difference between England and the American colonies. Here there was debate and less acceptance of the Charter as a fundamental law, but in the pre-US, perhaps driven by the emigration of political and religious dissenters looking for more freedom, it became more of a totem.

That's likely quite accurate as the American Bar Association has a monument put up near the sight of its apparent signing at Runnymede.

By the way: I will do little more than peep my head out in this one at most! The very intellectual back-and-forth between Danivon and Sassenach isn't something I want to ruin by putting in my two shillings often! (And if I do I'll avoid a long post, as above....I hope I haven't ruined it so far).

At any rate, I neglected to include this in my response above: as far as the Magna Carta being seemingly more important to American law than to the English law from which American law is derived, the following is taken out of the "Declaration of Rights" section of the present state constitution.

That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy six; and which, by experience, have been found applicable...[zzzZZZzzZZZZz]...And the Inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property derived to them from, or under the Charter granted by His Majesty Charles the First to Caecilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore.

and:

That notwithstanding the Common Law of England, nothing in this Constitution prohibits trial by jury of less than 12 jurors in any civil proceeding in which the right to a jury trial is preserved.

BTW this constitution is that of 1867, "as amended through 2014"; the fourth such state constitution (1776, 1851, 1864, 1867/present). Rather remarkable it mentions the King of England, by respectful regal title as well as by name, almost a century after independence. One wonders, also, what effect the regicide/execution of King Charles I had on us. My guess would be anything from "not so bloody good" to "gone pear-shaped." (In fact, there is a Cromwell Street in Baltimore, but probably named well after 1776 as an anti-monarchist, pro-independence expression.

Incidentally, I couldn't find any Post-Stuart Settlement on Wikipedia which is now functioning just fine.

While slightly off topic, I wanted to respond to your mention of fish weirs on the Potomac River:

The American colonists also took against fish weirs, after initial use. In 1768 Maryland's assembly ordered all on the Potomac destroyed and they were regularly removed over the next 60 years.

I am informed that it may have something to do with the obscure treaty signed between the Maryland and Virginia colonies during that century, in which Virginia basically ceded all rights to the Potomac River to Maryland...forever. I was also told that the treaty is still considered to be in force, making this the only place in the World where a river, separating two distinct polities, is not equally shared by them. Maryland literally owns the whole river, all the way up to the sand on the Virginia shoreline.

Hopefully none of what I've contributed is off topic...if I did veer from the charted course, my apologies.

Do they let Americans with dual citizenship stand for Parliament?

Oh, sure. I'm pretty sure that Tory MP Brooks Newmark is half American (with a name like that he'd have to be). He recently got caught sending pictures of his penis to a woman on Twitter though, so he's standing down...

We even have a German MP.

Sas:

He recently got caught sending pictures of his penis to a woman on Twitter though, so he's standing down...

you teach us about your political traditions, we teach you about ours.

I have not heard boo about the Magna Carta anniversary over here. In these parts we are only obsessed with 8 feet of snow in one month.

I have not heard boo about the Magna Carta anniversary over here. In these parts we are only obsessed with 8 feet of snow in one month.

Oh, you must live in the Northeast or the Midwest or the Rockies area, or some such place. I didn't think that 8 feet of snow really bothered you guys. As for where i live, let me tell you how it works in the Washington and Baltimore area.

One flake hits the ground: OMGOMGOMG it's frigging snowing again! Just like it did last year! Do we have enough canned goods and toilet paper in the fallout shelter? No? Everybody run to the grocery stores! And while we're at it, cancel schools for the next month! We don't want to get sued for any school bus accidents!

Oh yeah, and the federal government is closed to all "non-essential personnel" (pretty much 90% of them).

Wait, did somebody say the same thing happened last year? And the year before that? And the year before that? Hell, I don't remember anything like that, you must be joking.

I'm very sorry: I did promise to not interrupt what is a true diamond in the Redscape Rough, but now I cannot resist. Nor can I resist asking if there a "safe seat" in which I would stand for the House; most likely a Tory or Liberal Democrat seat. From what you gentlemen have informed me, I would have to get nominated by a constituency party. (But remember, since I'm an American, I would not be above bribing a few constituency party chairmen to get my nomination. ) [I am kidding about the bribery part, but if anyone *does* have anything to contribute, I'm "all ears* (and all Swiss Bank accounts.]

So that's all that is really left of the Magna Carta---three damn clauses! And so important to English (and British) history. I know it is not the same as a "constitution" per se, for the UK. But I cannot imagine if, 800 years from now, whatever constitution we are using then truncates, abridges or omits any of the clauses which had been in the United States Constitution of 1787 (original text as well as amendments) that grant rights to the People and places limitations on federal & state power over the same. I shudder to think.

I was under the impression that the "gist" of the Magna Carta was that, should the King wish to raise taxes, he must come hat in hand to a "Great Council" (something that had already convened for this or that purpose from time to time so the M.C. did not invent it obviously) and actually ask permission of the Nobility of the realm and representatives of the "communes" (communities or something). I remember you said something to this effect, and I meant to write it down in my notebook on the UK/Canada/Oz/parliamentary democracy but never did so. It may have come up in our famous 30+ page Redscape thread & I apologize if I am asking the same question twice.

Anyway, I was told, once the Nobles and Burgesses of the Realm controlled the purse strings of the Crown (via the power to veto a tax increase) they would eventually control the Crown itself, right? The way I see it: if "an Army marches on its stomach", then a Government marches on its money! It seems to me that the process was obviously not gradual, but came in fits and starts, but would you or would you not credit, or at least give partial credit to, the M.C. for the development of Constitutional Monarchy (and its offspring, Parliamentary Democracy) as it stands in the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

PS, found the book:

...For more than 1,000 years democracy disappeared from the European scene. The Period instead saw the blossoming of an exciting array of alternate forms of government, such as monarchy, absolute monarchy, kingship, queenhood, and three different types of oppression (religious/ethnic/for shits and giggles). As for individual liberty, "innocent until proven guilty" was rapidly supplanted by a more aggressive law-and-order approach better characterized as "guilty until proven flammable."

...The people needed a champion, and as is usually the case, the obscenely rich rode to the rescue. In 1215, England's wealthy barons refused to give King John the money he needed to wage war unless he signed the Magna Carta. The document codified that no man was above the law. Unfortunately for the peasant class, it did little to address how many were below it...

...The Magna Carta served as a wake-up call that Europe would be forced to answer...in about five hundred years. For Lady Democracy, having lain dormant for more than a millennium, had risen from its slumber only to stretch its arms, reach for the clock, and groggily set the snooze bar for "The Enlightenment."

[Stewart, John et. al. America the Book: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction. New York/Boston: Warner Books, 2004. p. 10.]

not even a titter? tough crowd...again, if you don't mind my butting in:

I found a link to the British Library copy of the Magna Carta in English.

Yeah, it does say quite a bit about the Jews. Man, they seem to get screwed in some sort of evil way every century, on the century.

I can see why there are only three clauses still in operation: a lot of the rest of it is entirely irrelevant to XXI Century legal situations. Though I personally like:

(45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well

So I guess the King of England could appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs and other officials, men who had no clue about English law. Wow.

Sassenach wrote:

Do they let Americans with dual citizenship stand for Parliament?

Oh, sure. I'm pretty sure that Tory MP Brooks Newmark is half American (with a name like that he'd have to be). He recently got caught sending pictures of his penis to a woman on Twitter though, so he's standing down...

We even have a German MP.

Boris Johnson has UK/US dual citizenship as he was born in New York. He is standing for parliament this year (and there are constant rumours that he wants to challenge for PM). He has been an MP before - he stood once elected to be Mayor of London in 2008.

Interestingly, he is apparently seeking to renounce his US citizenship. Some claim it's so he can go for the top job, but others note that he just had to settle a large tax demand from the IRS before he went over last week for a trade tour. So it's more likely to be down to tax issues than a constitutional hitch. I can't see any rule cited.

JimhackerMP wrote:not even a titter? tough crowd...

Dude, it was Valentines weekend.

Yes, there are plenty of safe seats. Not many Lib Dem ones (there are only 56 LD MPs and they are a fair degree less popular than 5 years ago). Because we have a similar system to the US, and even with less gerrymandering, there are a fair number of seats that very unlikely to change hands. Here: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html at the bottom you can see the safest Tory seats. You will note, if you look up the incumbents, that many are occupied by ministers or former ministers. This is because those safe seats are targeted for some of high flyers in the party. You don't have to live in a seat to stand there, by the way.

I guess that Maryland refers to Charles I because if they start to question the legitimacy of that King, then it undermines the legitmacy of any grants made by him. And there was a lot of wrangling over the border when Pennsylvania was set up by Charles II, so even though that was sorted out via Messrs Mason & Dixon, they wouldn't want to leave anything to chance.

The original settler of Maryland were Catholic, and so would have backed the Royalist side. States to the South would have tended to be more pro-Royal. Puritans in Mass and other places would have been more supportive of the Parliamentary side.

But back to Magna Carta - until about 1688 it was always more symbolic than anything else. It was frequently ignored, or explicitly repudiated. And for the first century, the re-issues were about getting a tax increase through. This started off a the "Great Council" and evolved into Parliament - started by that rebel de Montfort in 1264. Until 1295, it was more advisory, and in a sense was a way to work out what the capacity was for the nobles and merchants to tolerate new taxes.

Also, remember than until the Hundred Years' War, the Kings of England were also lord of parts of France, and had many prominent French subjects, who would perhaps not be cogniscant of English Laws. And frankly, not many people would know the laws, they were few and far between, not really written down (and if they were written, could be in Latin or French) and literacy wasn't all that high.

So the Magna Carta, through all its history, was mostly symbolic? The real "revolution" against the crown seems to have happened, not gradually (over the course of 800 astonishing years) but in "fits and starts", so to speak. Perhaps if it had never been written, there would have been no rallying cry here and there for liberty and [eventually] parliamentary government throughout English & British history from 1215 to present?