Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta

I think the author disparages the impact of the Charter of the Forest a little unfairly. The Carta de Foresta has arguably been the most significant of the two. For a differing view see an article i wrote for the Dissident Voice websitehttp://dissidentvoice.org/2015/02/the-greater-and-better-charter/

And how about this from a Surrey libraries email?Join us to celebrate the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta Magna Carta Foundation of Liberty – Runnymede 800On Monday 15 June the national commemoration event to mark the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta will take place in the presence of HM The Queen, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Cambridge, The Princess Royal, Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence and other dignitaries from the UK and around the world.For safety and security reasons the event is invitation only. Everyone else is welcome to come to watch the ceremony on large TV screens on the meadow near the National Trust lodges at Runnymede – but please bear in mind that the usual access routes to Runnymede Meadows will be extremely restricted throughout the day and the National Trust car parks at Runnymede and the nearby Runnymede Pleasure Grounds car park will be closed. So we'll be treated to a royal 'you can look but you can't touch' event.

Heyup, I can see you like the forest charter.I don't.  But I looked at it from the point of view of the serfs and not the freemen, foresters -in-fee, beadles or nobility.  But first let's deal with…"The Forest Charter legacy as claimed by modern-day forestershttp://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20088/fascinating_history/135/mediev…"Don't believe everything you read on a government website.  The Surrey government website tells us that Magna Carta has brought us 800 years of democracy.  This one (it's a quote from a very old work on the charter) ' abolished mutilation as a lesser punishment' – not true.  The 1198 statute that prescribes blindness and castration for "trespasses against the venison" remained in place.  What was stopped was capital punishment and the removal of limbs.  I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to keep my eyesight and knackers, even if it costs me an arm and a leg.The forest charter applies mostly to freemen and above, so 90% of the population are given no extra rights by it.Where it specifically includes serfs is only in clause 17 (laymen also have to obey these rules) and clause 7, which prevents foresters and beadles from making scotale, that is, brewing ale which forest inhabitants were obliged to purchase.  As the practice of scotale continued into the 14th century, then this was not the privileged giving the serfs a break, but officials carving out de facto protection racket territories between them as to who will get the scotale money.  So this meant less ale and, with the supply restricted, a higher price for the workers.Rules that apply to all (and may possibly apply to serfs) are:clause 2 – men living outside the forest need only go before justices if they are involved in forest crime.  Courts are limited three times a year and every 40 days.  Some restriction.clause 10 – no one will be killed or lose a limb for venison, but see above.And…clause 15 – at first sight this looks like serfs are included in this general amnesty for people outlawed for forest offences from the time of Henry II to John, but as this amnesty requires providing a pledge for good behaviour, which serfs could not do, it does not relate to them.Yes, it's wonderful, isn't it, if you are a freeman and above – if you are a merchant you can go through the forest and there will be a limit to the tolls you have to pay. If you're a knight or a baron you get your lands back.  Freeman can pannage, dig marl pits and cut down trees so long as they don't upset the neighbours.  And, well, yes, it does affect the serfs.  It means that they are now burdened with more work – who else will be doing the building and tree surgery?  So the effect of the forest charter for serfs is that they have less ale, at a higher cost, and a vicious increase in their workload.  I'm up to being put right on this, Alan, but I'll need a bit of convincing that this charter brings anything positive to a thirteenth century serf.  Or it being 'crucial' in any aspect of the class struggle, any more than the large charter was crucial, despite being quoted by levellers and chartists.But happen rather than continue this internet forum ping-pong we might discuss this after a party meeting or something, eh?

If there's any chance at all of it being useful in the class struggle, I'll be over it like a rash.

I see they are invoking the Forest Charter to justify being there. Be interesting to see what the judge in Guildford County Court makes of it. Maybe he'll have to ascertain whether they are "freemen" or serfs.

Let's hope the judge doesn't decide that they are "sturdy beggars" and order them to be branded — which, apparently, the Magna Carta didn't ban.

I like this bit of doublespeak:"Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons…We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command".You're free to say what you like or keep quiet but if you don't say what I want I'll make you. A bit reminiscent of the two-faced posturing in some quarters post Charlie Hebdo.