| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| If I follow, there was a document upon which the Magna Carta was based and that document was a forgery---but the Magna Carta itself was legit? |
Yes, in the strict sense of being an actual document signed by the people at the bottom of the page at the time stated. But, no, in the sense that it wouldn't exist in the form it does without the Archbish forging its precursor.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
|
Magna Carta = Charlemagne
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You might think the origins of the Mother of Parliaments would be of interest to the world, but apparently not.
| Where the rebellion of 1258 differed fundamentally from that of 1215 [i.e. leading up to Magna Carta] was in the so-called ‘Provisions of Oxford’, the re-organisation of the system of government undertaken by the Commune [i.e. a collection of barons, churchmen and 'commoners'] at its meeting at Oxford in June 1258. |
One of the supposed reasons for the failure of Magna Carta was that it had been assumed that getting the king's signature was enough. Not only was it not, but even the king's signature could be nulled-and-voided (and promptly was) by the Pope. So this time, the 'commune', the king's opponents, made sure there was a permanent institution to hold him to permanent account. The forerunner of Parliament. But what's this?
| Despite its importance, the details of this re-organisation exist only in an informal memorandum copied into the Chronicle of Burton Abbey. The lack of an official record has never been satisfactorily explained. |
Never been explained? Never been mentioned more like. Any theories for this remarkable-but-seldom-noticed occurrence, Mr Historian?
| It may be that, as with John’s attitude to Magna Carta, Henry III had it excised from the records. Alternatively, it is possible that an official statute never was made because Henry soon grew powerful enough to avoid ratifying it. |
This is entirely ludicrous. It is reasonable that Henry was able to jiggle out of his commitments -- that is not at issue -- but how can the original agreement, apparently the whole point of the struggle, and the crux of the governance of England -- go walkabout? Was John able to make Magna Carta disappear just because he didn't like it? But now things get weirder
| The king accepted the provisions in a historic proclamation issued in English, French, and Latin; |
Hang on. The proclamation accepting it is 'historic' (can somebody find out if we've at least got that) but the 'it' has just gone for a Burton. And get this. The proclamation is not just historic in one sense but in quite another. It was
| the first official document to include the English language since the Norman Conquest. |
You must be joking. In 1258? I dinna believe it. When was the next one, I wonder. (Could someone find out?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
This is wondeful stuff!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| the first official document to include the English language since the Norman Conquest. |
Extraordinary! One might be forgiven for wondering if, not unlike said proclamation, three hundred years haven't also gone walkabout.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
You know what? I'll tell you when it all happened.
The English parlimentary system was invented when Elizabeth fled to England to escape the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. England agreed to Brexit from the Empire and install Elizabeth as Monarch on the condition that her Monarchy be a limited one---curtailed by Parlaiment. It was also agreed--as I mentioned before--that her heirs would not succeed her. Instead, the throne of a united and independent Britain would pass to the King of Scotland.
you got to admit.... it's an interesting story I tell.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello campers. After dipping into your Pandora's Box of strange delights for several weeks, I've finally decided to jump in.
The ideas behind English governance, as seen in Magna Carta, is likely to have been based on how The City of London was run. This incredibly old 'City State' claims to be the oldest continuous municipal democracy in the world and predates Parliament. Here's a quote from their website...
"Its constitution is rooted in the ancient rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens before the Norman Conquest in 1066. The City of London developed a unique form of government which led to the system of parliamentary government at local and national level.
That London enjoyed certain freedoms and had a form of civic administration before the Norman conquest, can be seen in the Charter granted by William the Conqueror in 1067, in which he promised to recognise the rights, privileges and laws that the City had enjoyed since the time of Edward the Confessor (1042-62). In Saxon London and in the medieval period, municipal authority rested principally with Aldermen ('elder' men or elderfolk), who met in the City's ancient Court of Husting - the supreme court of the medieval City, with administrative and judicial functions. There is reliable evidence of its existence in 1032, although it was probably much older, and by the mid-12th century it was held weekly. It is likely that the Court of Aldermen developed from the administrative side of the work of the Court of Husting..."
More information available on this link...
https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/about-the-city/about-us/Pages/history-of-the-government-of-the-city-of-london.aspx
Even today the C of L retains a fair amount of autonomy despite several attempts to remove their privileges by various governments over the centuries. I wonder how they have kept going for so long?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome, Boris. A little orthodox for my taste but I am sure you are going to dig down and expose Eddie the Confessor's alleged promises. And don't forget Clement Danes! Where have they gone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| The ideas behind English governance, as seen in Magna Carta, is likely to have been based on how The City of London was run. This incredibly old 'City State' claims to be the oldest continuous municipal democracy in the world and predates Parliament. Here's a quote from their website... |
Nice start Tabak.
None of this lot have worked out the connection between cities, currency and charters.
In fact I haven't either. I just know there is something. Maybe.
Where I have nagging doubts is this concept of the original charter, it appears to me that there were charters everywhere then somebody got the idea of Magna Carta.
I don't know. At least you appear to know where you are heading...Gods Speed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Welcome, Boris. A little orthodox for my taste but I am sure you are going to dig down and expose Eddie the Confessor's alleged promises. And don't forget Clement Danes! Where have they gone? |
Thanks for your welcome Harpy, and for Wyle's too.
For many years I've been interested in why the small island of Britain seems to have and always has had its meddlesome hands in world affairs. This led me, by a number of convoluted steps, to the gates of the very ancient City of London.
Little of Britain's textbook history seems to make much sense to me. It appears that nothing much happened before the Roman period, and after this history seems to be dominated by our subsequent apparent deferral of power to the Holy Roman See. I also think anything to do with the nobility is open to question and they were not too important to life in Britain and had only a small impact at global scale. Just figureheads enjoying a comfy life and obeying orders while the real powers behind the throne got on with the job of managing domestic matters whilst at the same time plundering the riches of the world.
Thanks for the tip about examining St Clement Danes, this has now led me down a rabbit hole full of beavers and their association with The C of L. Regarding charters, money and The City there are many links to explore. The Lord Mayor of London still is bound by ancient traditions and the Great Seal, the purse, sword and mace could help our understanding of how things used to work, and maybe still do.
More on this later, but for now, it is back to the beavers...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Well you'd better take over as our Trinity House correspondent in that case. There's a bit in the What About Them Apples thread, and a bit more on our Megalithic Empire site http://www.themegalithicempire.com/forum/
but you'll have to work out the full SP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several years ago I was invited to represent the company I was working for at an official lunch in Trinity House. It was an enjoyable experience and the short speech given by Prince Philip, who was the Master at the time, was hilarious. Not what I expected at such a formal event.
As they are one of the Corporations within the walls of The C of L, it will be worth doing a bit of digging around, to see if anything of interest can be found. At first glance it looks like they were originally formed to ensure a monopoly on Thames pilotage tolls, but we'll see where things lead before jumping to conclusions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
You're clearly part of the conspiracy. Disqualified!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not a great believer in conspiracy theories, although I also think we, the public, do not always get told the whole truth. The powers that be in The C of L do not need to collude to achieve their goals as what they do is almost always within the framework of the laws of the land.
The way power is shared between our government and the judiciary is a grey area. The government passes laws, but it is the independent judiciary who are responsible for establishing the rule of law. They interpret what has been stated in parliamentary acts, with case law usually paramount.
Coincidentally, the most prestigious Inns of Court lie within the city walls.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
