Within the context of the options you have suggested, ‘B - The power of the monarchy was limited,’ is clearly the correct answer. However, it is a very incomplete answer.
Magna Carta was the first written formalization of the English Common Law. A common Law which had been evolving from the Village Law of the Britain, Celtic, and Saxon, people. This should be considered even more amazing in that William of Normandy tried to impose his feudal laws on this people in 1066 and the peoples’ law returned in 1215 with the initial signing of the first Great Charter, Magna Carta.
Within this charter it is most likely the ‘trial by jury’ which was most significant of controlling the monarch and the lords of the land through the Common Law. Following is a short citing from Chapter XI of Lysander Spooner’s work on the Magna Carta “Trial by Jury.” Here you will find that that Magna Carta was not signed a single time but multiple times by multiple monarchs and that the monarchs rarely held to the rule of law. If you find it interesting to any degree I highly recommend your reading the entire work.
CHAPTER XI. AUTHORITY OF MAGNA CARTA
PROBABLY no political compact between king and people was
Ever entered into in a manner to settle more authoritatively the
fundamental law of a nation, than was Magna Carta. Probably no
people were ever more united and resolute in demanding from
their king a definite and unambiguous acknowledgment of their rights
and liberties, than were the English at that time. Probably no
king was ever more completely stripped of all power to maintain
his throne, and at the same time resist the demands of his
people, than was John on the 15th day of June, 1215. Probably no
king every consented, more deliberately or explicitly, to hold
his throne subject to specific and enumerated limitations upon
his power, than did John when he put his seal to the Great
Charter of the Liberties of England. And if any political compact
between king and people was ever valid to settle the liberties of
the people, or to limit the power of the crown, that compact is
now to be found in Magna Carta. If, therefore, the constitutional
authority of Magna Carta had rested solely upon the compact of
John with his people, that authority would have been entitled to
stand forever as the supreme law of the land, unless revoked by
the will of the people themselves.
But the authority of Magna Carta does not rest alone upon the
compact with John. When, in the next year, (1216,) his son, Henry
III., came to the throne, the charter was ratified by him, and
again in 1217, and again in 1225, in substantially the same form,
and especially without allowing any new powers, legislative,
judicial, or executive, to the king or his judges, and without
detracting in the least from the powers of the jury. And from the
latter date to this, the charter has remained unchanged.
In the course of two hundred years the charter was confirmed by
Henry and his successors more than thirty times. And although
they were guilty of numerous and almost continual breaches of it,
and were constantly seeking to evade it, yet such were the
spirit, vigilance and courage of the nation, that the kings held
their thrones only on the condition of their renewed and solemn
promises of observance. And it was not until 1429, (as will be
more fully shown hereafter,) when a truce between themselves,
and a formal combination against the mass of the people, had been
entered into, by the king, the nobility, and the "forty shilling
freeholders," (a class whom Mackintosh designates as "a few
freeholders then accounted wealthy," [1]) by the exclusion of all
others than such freeholders from all voice in the election of
knights to represent the counties in the House of Commons, that a
repetition of these confirmations of Magna Carta ceased to be
demanded. and obtained.
2007-05-13 11:59:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋