how do you feel about the magna carta?

Question

what is your opinion?

Answer 1

~It depends on which version you mean but none of them are legal documents given the circumstances under which John signed. That being said, I do have to express my admiration and respect for the barons who, among other things:

proclaimed for all time that haberject would forever be measured at two ells within the selvedge,

wine and ale would be measured by the London quarter.

Or that if one died in debt to a Jew, the debt would not accrue interest until the eldest heir came of age (and likewise, if his estate was insufficient to repay the debt, his widow didn't have to pay it. - Methinks the barons were goys.)

Or one was exempt from giving more than market value as knight's fees - unless compelling circumstances justified more.

a real stroke for freedom and liberty was the fact that, under the charter, barons and earls could only be fined by earls and barons but at least no one else had to build a bridge unless he had an obligation already to do so.

It was really good that Magna Carte allowed knights serving abroad to skip their castle guard duties - cut down on AWOLs tremendously.

Taking the weirs off the Medway except along the coast was probably a good thing.

Deforesting was probably something the Sierra Club would have bristled at, but, hey, the barons didn't want the trees.

Gloria Steinem probably didn't like that fact that murder charges couldn't be brought by a woman unless the stiff was her old man.

It was kind of nice that John got to hang on the the lands that his daddy, Henry, and his big brother, Richard, stole from the Welsh, but at least Llywelyn's son was released.

It was also pretty swell that all the foreign troops would be sent home after the war was done.

Have you read the charter? Do you know the context in which it was signed? What is one to think of it? The barons won and Runnymede was their reward. They looked out for themselves pretty well. As a document of individual freedom and liberty, well, it isn't and that was not the intent of the baron's who were holding their swords and lances to John's throat. It is a specific document which addresses itself to specific issues and while it maintains the fealty of the peerage, it also retains the primacy of the crown.

Answer 2

Overrated...largely restated freedoms already laid out by Henry I. The fact that either of those documents developed at the time that they did, however, is remarkable.

Then again, a certain ammount of pretention should be expected from something that roughly translates to "Big Piece of Paper."

Answer 3

Considering that Blair has got rid of the last shreds of it with his anti-terrorist legislation (something not done, incidentally, when the IRA campaign was at the height of its ferocity), it is something to look back on:
'To none shall we sell, to none shall we deny or delay, right of justice.'

Answer 4

We had to make King John agree to all that shite, otherwise we would have been buggered.

Signed,

The Nobles what made the Great Charter

Answer 5

i think it was in some peoples favour more than others but john was a terrible king and something needed to be done

Answer 6

It was lovely;sitting there in a glass safe in salisbury
cathedral.
Salisbury in wiltshire was a great town,probably still is.

Answer 7

wasnt worth signing

Answer 8

I think it would have looked better in mauve.

Answer 9

it was the smartest thing in their time.