Magna Carta and absolute monarchs?

Question

I am confused about the relationship between the magna carta and the rise of absolute monarchs.

I thought that the magna carta limited the power of the king. How does that fit in with the absolute monarchs right to rule?

Answer 1

The Magna Carta is grossly misinterpreted - - - the Plantagenet Kings ruled by pitting various factions against one another, a strong Plantangenet King could do this successfully, a weaker sort such as John Lackland was not as adept. What was truly revolutionary was that several Barons awoke to the fact that they could set aside obligations to The King by forging alliances with one another, and in doing so they kicked Johns b@tt and forced him to sign the Magna Carta ---
"Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta influenced many common law and other documents, such as the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, and is considered one of the most important legal documents in the history of democracy.
Magna Carta was originally written because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and his English barons about the rights of the King. Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that the will of the king could be bound by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects - whether free or unfree - most notably the right of Habeas Corpus. Many clauses were renewed throughout the Middle Ages, and further during the Tudor and Stuart periods, and the 17th and 18th centuries. By the early 19th century most clauses in their original form had been repealed from English law.
There are a number of popular misconceptions about Magna Carta, such as that it was the first document to limit the power of an English king by law (it was not the first, and was partly based on the Charter of Liberties); that it in practice limited the power of the king (it mostly did not in the Middle Ages); and that it is a single static document (it is a variety of documents referred to under a common name)."


Now here is the answer to your question - - - - ever notice how lawyers will nit pick and get a grup of twelve intelligent people to agree that cows give purple milk and that democracy is errupting in Iraq? By having a series of documents granting the King certain Rights, the ever smart Tudor and then Stuart Kings (and yes Queen Elizabeth had a hand in it) - - - by cleverly interepting these 'rights' the Tudor & Stuart Monarchs were able to expand their privilleges ("see, here it says I have the authority to wage war, now you parliament/congress MUST approve the funds to do so").

The Magna Carta gave Monarchs a legal basis to expand their rights - - - also once the Barons joined in allegiance against their King, future Kings learned to turn those Barons into bocks of power // factions against factions. By the time of the Tudor and Stuart Kings when a Monarch wanted more power, it was simply a matter of getting a large faction to jump up and demand that the King's Rights be honored ("we demand to go to war with those towel heads").

Constitutions // Magna Cartas can be wonderful tools but the use to which one puts those tools can be hazardous. Guns don't kill people people do.

Peace...

Answer 2

1215 - King John (the same Prince John of Robin Hood fame) met with the nobles outside of Runnymede and sealed the Magna Carta (he didn't sign it, not at all ... it was all done with wax seals). Four original copies still exist, two in the British Museum, one at Salisbury Cathedral, and one at Lincoln Cathedral (which is almost all black, but the seals are mostly still attached)

But I think you have it exactly opposite to the way it should be. The Magna Carta limited the absolute power of kings. What it did was to put kings under the power of law like everyone else, and for the first time suggested that even a peasant had some rights (although very limited by today's standards). It sets up a standard of due process.

Now the Magna Carta was soon rejected by the Pope and therefore held no real standing as the "Law of the Land" but it was the beginning and several documents thereafter followed in the footsteps of it.

Answer 3

Document guaranteeing English political liberties, drafted at Runnymede, a meadow by the Thames, and signed by King John in 1215 under pressure from his rebellious barons.

Resentful of the king's high taxes and aware of his waning power, the barons were encouraged by the archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, to demand a solemn grant of their rights. Among the charter's provisions were clauses providing for a free church, reforming law and justice, and controlling the behavior of royal officials. It was reissued with alterations in 1216, 1217, and 1225. Though it reflects the feudal order rather than democracy, the Magna Carta is traditionally regarded as the foundation of British constitutionalism.

Answer 4

the magna carta was one of the first constitutions and gave the americans their basis for their constitution. without it we might be using a different document for organizing government or have a completly dif. government. If you need more; as i say "when all else fails, google it."

Answer 5

Correction- citizens where given rights.
Citizen = landed.