111
112

Reuters does the Magna Carta... badly (self.badhistory)

JujuAdam が 投稿

British royals return to Runnymede, where Magna Carta sealed 800 years ago

Nothing in English history attracts so much misreading, wilful or otherwise, as the Magna Carta. It is a staple of history tuition in the UK (and abroad in the Commonwealth also, so I'm told) and, invariably, it is taught as being a bastion of liberty, an enshrinement of the fundamental rights of man. This just isn't the case.

I used to like Reuters, y'know.

[The Magna Carta] laid the foundation for modern freedoms.

Oh good lord, no. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom from torture... The Magna Carta ensured none of these. One somewhat modern policy that was agreed to was the prevention false imprisonment by the Crown of its subjects - so long as these subjects were barons, of course.

The Magna Carta, shortly after its signing, was annulled by the Pope. A war broke out, rather aptly titled The First Barons' War, and the regency council that held power after John's untimely death signed a different agreement. As Henry III grew of age, the Magna Carta was amended time and time again until it was simply disregarded by the end of the 13th Century.

The Magna Carta of 1215 was redundant three months after its signing. This makes further comments such as

it form[s] the bedrock of Britain's constitutional freedoms

well wide of the mark. For bonus scumbag points, we're told:

The Magna Carta is the product of a situation far closer to that which elsewhere in today's world we might associate with the enemies of modern liberal democracy, with Sharia law

A vile insinuation and entirely unnecessary. Oh dear.

全 61 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Eat_a_Bullet 18ポイント19ポイント  (5子コメント)

In the U.S., we were taught that Magna Carta just enshrined certain rights for some of the nobles. I hadn't even heard the odd "Magna Carta = bedrock of freedom" myth until I was an adult. My only other memory of it from school is repeatedly confusing it with the Rosetta Stone, because I was a lousy student.

[–]SnugglerificHe who has command of the pasta, has command of everything. 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

Magna Carta seems like the British equivalent of how we learn about the Constitution in the US. The Constitution invented freedom and liberty, and the bald eagle did shed a single tear of joy.

[–]nihil_novi_sub_soleW. T. Sherman burned the Library of Alexandria 23ポイント24ポイント  (3子コメント)

At least the Constitution actually is a big deal in US law. Magna Carta is the legal equivalent of the Battle of Thermopylae, getting its significance blown way out of proportion because it happens to suit a particular narrative.

[–]sharrken 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's a real shame everyone ignores the Assize of Clarendon fifty years before. There you actually have the start of the Grand Jury, beginnings of civil and criminal distinctions, and royal law being applied across the kingdom with the King's own agents. If you're going to pick anything from the period to blow way out of proportion and make the be all and end all of legal development, at least pick that!

[–]JujuAdam[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

"Common Law, motherfucker, do you speak it?"

[–]CupBeEmpty 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't think you know how much I love the Common Law. Literally the only decent thing to come out of England beside Americans. The fact that we have steadily moved to more statutory regimes in most areas of law breaks my heart.

[–]Grapeban 37ポイント38ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Magna Carta is the product of a situation far closer to that which elsewhere in today's world we might associate with the enemies of modern liberal democracy, with Sharia law

What a meaningless statement. This lazy assumption that 'Sharia law = theocracy' or 'Sharia law = no rights' isn't simply counterfactual, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the words "Sharia law" mean.

[–]Spaceman_JalegoThe big Khrushchev of China 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

Misunderstanding of Sharia Law is one of the most infuriating common misconceptions I see. I found this site depressingly high in the google results. Just look at this tripe:

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood who have penetrated the US government have security clearances and are advising not only on "outreach" programs to the Muslims in the United States but also classified counter-terrorism programs that are supposed to protect Americans from Islamic terrorism.

People like this don't give a rat's ass what Sharia Law actually means, they just use it as a talking point for Islamophobia.

[–]nihil_novi_sub_soleW. T. Sherman burned the Library of Alexandria 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

I can't tell if they're being racist or not. "Medieval Europe sucked as hard as all those weird sandy places, and look how much cool stuff they invented!" is a popular talking point among paranoid, Islam-hating Defenders of Glorious Western Civilization, so that's the first place my mind goes. I'm pretty sure Robert Spencer has said plenty of things along the line of "well where's the Islamic Magna Carta?"

[–]greyspectre2100Pawn Stars: Nazi Edition 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's time for a barely related story!

As a senior in high school, I took AP U.S. Government. My teacher was doing his time as a teacher while being the wrestling coach, and so it wasn't all that interesting to him.

This was his spiel from day one: "We're gonna be going back to the Magna Carta in 1215, then through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and finally on to the government of today." Okay, so far, so good.

We proceeded to learn nothing about the Magna Carta, English common law, or pretty much anything government related for the entirety of the next three months with Coach Pat. We did learn things, though!

Coach Pat didn't like nuns, due to a bad experience with them as a child in Catholic school. Because there were mean nuns in The Saint, we got to watch it.

Coach Pat was once in a sauna in France, and there were two German girls who wanted to rent a locker. He spoke no German, they spoke no French, and somehow they managed to work out trading his pair of one franc coins for a two franc coin.

We took a week off for the wrestling tournament, not that we'd done anything anyway up to that point anyway.

That class was amazing until our second trimester. Someone must have gotten on Coach, because we were suddenly starting with the Constitution and it was WORK WORK WORK from that point forward.

[–]00chris00 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Coaches really did make the most interesting teachers

[–]QuouarFactose intolerant 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I always like my world history teacher who was also the soccer coach. He gave you bonus points if your essay about a Renaissance figure was about Haydn because his kid's name was Haydn. He also got the class's input on what exercises the soccer team would do.

[–]ThornsyAgain 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

was annulled by the Pope

Wow, I genuinely never knew this!

[–]TrexJeskDionysus Don't Real 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

Medieval Popes were so busy. It's always "annul this", "declare that", "establish theology". No time to just hang out with the Cardinals.

[–]PlowbeastNosy historians get the Sima Qian treatment. 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't forget "unearth your predecessor for a mock trial".

[–]LuckyRevenantPelin-El Did Nothing Wrong 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

God the Cadaver Trial is the best

[–]StrangerJ 16ポイント17ポイント  (24子コメント)

Fun fact: It's not "The Magna Carta," it's just "Magna Carta" because it's not a definitive item, so it's it doesn't get a definitive article.

[–]JujuAdam[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah totes, I just say it wrong through force of habit.

[–]JDHoare 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

I scrolled down in glee hoping I'd be the first to point this out. FML

[–]StrangerJ 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I was in your shoes too buddy

I only know this because a youtuber I like who plays europa universalis mentioned it off hand

[–]Halocon720 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Another citizen of the Elysian Empire?

[–]WhaleMeatFantasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (18子コメント)

so it's it doesn't get a definitive article.

Definite article? The Magna Carta is a definite item. I can take you to a museum and show you a copy if you like.

[–]StrangerJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

So I went and looked it up, and it turns out it doesn't get a definite article because it is Latin (I knew it was Latin but I didn't know it didn't have one because it was in Latin)

Also, on the off chance you don't know. The definite article is "The" and indefinite article is "a/an"

[–]WhaleMeatFantasy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (16子コメント)

it doesn't get a definite article because it is Latin

Since we are communicating in English it makes sense to use the definite article.

on the off chance you don't know

I know perfectly well. That's how I was able to point out you got the wrong word...

[–]StrangerJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

But as it is a Latin document it is proper to say it with the correct syntax

It's like there being a sports team called "Las Ninas" and calling them "The Las Ninas"

[–]Delta87 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Like the Los Angeles Angels?

[–]WhaleMeatFantasy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Again, we're not speaking Latin. Do you think it's wrong to refer to the Aeneid?

Your second point is a false analogy because Latin had no definite article whereas Spanish does. You're not comparing like with like. Nevertheless, when we anglicise words we do double up articles sometimes from foreign languages. Think about alcohol or alligator.

You can make a point about Magna Carta as a title but usage makes the definite article fine.

[–]StrangerJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Latin does have a definite article, it's called the nomative

[–]WhaleMeatFantasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (11子コメント)

Latin does have a definite article, it's called the nomative

What? You're out of your depth, aren't you. Or trolling. Either way there's not much point in carrying this on.

[–]StrangerJ 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

I've studied latin for 3 years, their declintions are very important for the meaning of words and imply very specific things

If you want something to be "The X" then it is in the nomative

[–]WhaleMeatFantasy -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

You mean the nominative. Like I said, classical Latin does not have an equivalent word to the English definite article. That's why we often add one when translating a nominative. That's the whole frigging point.

[–]matts2 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Near as I can tell the Magna Carta is the start (ish?) of the British writing down the rules.

[–]nihil_novi_sub_soleW. T. Sherman burned the Library of Alexandria 9ポイント10ポイント  (2子コメント)

It was largely based on a charter written 115 years earlier. The barons responsible for Magna Carta were very deliberately trying to make a new version of the older Charter of Liberties that wouldn't be ignored basically as soon as the ink dried, but that didn't really work out. It's the start of the British writing down rules in much the same way Texas was the start of letting states into the Union.

[–]autowikibotLibrary of Alexandria 2.0 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Charter of Liberties:

The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, was a written proclamation by Henry I of England, issued upon his accession to the throne in 1100. It sought to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. The 19th-century historians Frederick Maitland and Frederick Pollock considered it a landmark document in English legal history and a forerunner of the Magna Carta.

The document addressed abuses of royal power by his predecessor William II (his brother William Rufus), as perceived by the nobility, specifically the over-taxation of the barons, the abuse of vacant sees, and the practices of simony and pluralism.

The charter of liberties was generally ignored by monarchs, until in 1213 Archbishop Langton reminded the nobles that their liberties had been guaranteed over a century prior in Henry I's Charter of Liberties.

Image i

Relevant: List of English statutes | Magna Carta | Roger Bigod of Norfolk | Thomas Dongan, 2nd Earl of Limerick

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Call Me

[–]JujuAdam[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Forming the constitutional monarchy was a long uphill struggle.

Prince Charles proves how worthwhile that fight was.

[–]sharrken 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Another Magna Carta myth really. We have Anglo Saxon law codes going back to the seventh century. The Leges Henrici Primi collated the vast majority of Anglo-Norman law around 1115, a hundred years before Magna Carta. Henry II overhauled the legal system in the decades before John's reign, promulgating the assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, creating evidentially based trials and the first formal juries in English courts. The 'origins of the common law', if you want to call it that, were firmly rooted in these developments. But over the years they have become conflated with Magna Carta, creating a neat little turning point in legal history, of rights and procedure developed overnight, which has no basis in what the document is actually about.

[–]frezikLincoln is literally the guy who killed Hitler 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure some of you could write troves about Simon Schama's History of Britain, but I liked his take on it: the first Magna Carta was just nobles bellyaching about taxes. Still, it did come with the idea that there could be limits placed on the king by his subjects, so there's that.

[–]nomeanswhatever 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I had a medieval history prof who described Magna Carta as "a reactionary document created by elitist nobles who wanted to keep their stuff"

[–]themanwhoknowsnothinLeft Shark Approved ^TM 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Magna Carta wasn't taught in Alberta democratic history. So at least some corners of the Commonwealth don't fellate it

[–]elmonoenano 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Sharia law thing is interesting. I don't have a source but about a couple of years ago (I think it was around the time of the Egyptian election that elected Morsi) I was reading an article and the premise was that the reason why so many Arabs claimed they wanted a constitution based on Sharia law was b/c they wanted a government that was subject to the rule of law. If you conducted a more in depth survey than "Do you want Sharia law" you got answers about holding public officials accountable, limiting the power of the head of the state, independent judges, no detention without a trial, etc.

Apparently Arabs at the time felt the only way to have a gov. where state officials wouldn't trample over human rights was to subject them to god's law.

If the premise of that article is true it really makes a mockery out of the Reuters article.

[–]BritainOpPlsNerfParty like its 1939 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only thing I can actually focus on his how old Phillip has gotten :C. Its like watching a foul-mouth grandpa bend under the burden of age.

[–]borticusMelkor Wasn't So Bad 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh sure, the next thing you're going to try and sell me is that Robin Hood fought and died for nothing.

[–]HeyXKid 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That was right around the time the French invaded using D-Day-style landing craft.

[–]myfriendscallmethorLindisfarne was an inside job. 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Britain's constitutional freedoms

Quick question: how can Britain have constitutional freedoms if it lacks a constitution? I've heard of the UK having an "unwritten" constitution, but it seems pretty sketchy to me. I mean, you can have laws that dictate important things like rights, etc. but I have a hard time seeing how you can decide which laws or freedoms are constitutional if they aren't in a constitution.

[–]LarryMahnken 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

It has a constitution, but it doesn't have a single document stating "this is how the government of the UK works". It's centuries of laws and precedents that together form the structure of the government.

[–]Suppiluliuma_I 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

that really doesn't sound like a constitution, if those are all just regular laws that could be repealed or overridden at any time.

[–]mmiloshdevolved into ad-hominems and sophistries about semantics 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Constitutions can be amended or replaced with new ones, they don't have magical powers that prevent them from being changed.

[–]Suppiluliuma_I 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

well, it's pretty damn hard to change, say the american constitution, much different than the process for normal laws. that's what i think of when i think constitution, something above/much harder to change than regular legislation

[–]mmiloshdevolved into ad-hominems and sophistries about semantics 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

A constitution is a document or a set of documents that set the fundamental principles on how the state is governed. That's really the definition of what it is, the "more difficult to change" part is more of a political consequence. The US constitution, that you mentioned, has had 27 amendments in 330 years which is on average one every 12 years. So it's not as if the US Constitution is immune to change, no matter what the popular opinion is.

UK is different in the sense that it has legislative supremacy. The legislative body (the Parliament) has supremacy over all other institutions. So yes, because its constitution consists of a number legal documents, each of those is easier to change, because the Parliament can change or repeal any previous legislation without jumping through special hoops. It's still a constitution though.

[–]Suppiluliuma_I 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

A constitution is a document or a set of documents that set the fundamental principles on how the state is governed. That's really the definition of what it is, the "more difficult to change" part is more of a political consequence. The US constitution, that you mentioned, has had 27 amendments in 330 years which is on average one every 12 years. So it's not as if the US Constitution is immune to change, no matter what the popular opinion is.

Averaging them out like that is pretty deceptive IMO, considering how a lot of them came about in bursts as a result of civil war or massive social movements and unrest of the like most of us have prolly never seen, they are not just ordinary laws.

Moreover, i don't see how any set of documents is particularly fundamental if it's as easy to change, alter, or deny, as any other.