Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta
- This topic has 21 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following is a discussion on the page titled: Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta.
Below is the discussion so far. Feel free to add your own comments!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/
Hi Alan,Thanks for the comment, and I read your article.Your quotation from Chomsky (“Its goal was to protect the source of sustenance for the population, the commons, from external power”) causes me to put down something I never expected I would ever write: Chomsky was wrong. He’s looking at the Forest Charter through 21st century eyes, and seeing it as some attempt to right injustice. Sadly, this is like the long and tedious history of people assigning similar goals to Magna Carta.Of the charter’s 17 clauses (using the link in your article), no more than five, if that, pertain to serfs, and none deal exclusively with serfs. All the others concern people who were definitely not serfs: nobles, clergy, officials (foresters, verderers, etc.), dog owners, landowners, freemen.This was no act of charity to the poor by those who drafted it. It was about the king gaining a bit of wriggle-room against the nobles who wanted the end of forests – that is, areas set aside for the king to hunt in and generate extra revenue. I’m of the opinion that when the point of the conflict is disagreement between royalty and nobility, there is no time out by the protagonists to show concern or to uphold the rights of their de facto bonded labourers. I don’t think any serfs were consulted either, but this could be socialist prejudice on my part.And the kings took about the same notice of it as they did the great charter – it didn’t take long for the nobles to whine that Henry III had “cancelled the charters of the liberties of the Forest” as Roger of Wendover put it.Possibly it is the more significant of the two, but would you be made aware of it, if you're labouring on someone else's land in the middle of the thirteenth century, at the bottom of a long line of bosses, all of whom have interests contrary to yours? No.
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.
The translated text of the Charter of the Foresthttp://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/forests/Carta.htmThe Forest Charter legacy as claimed by modern-day forestershttp://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/info/20088/fascinating_history/135/medieval_forest/2P209 of Communities and Courts in Britain 1150 to 1900 cites a 1389 royal decree to anul the Charter as part of the reaction against the Peasants Revolt and how it was defied by rich and poor alike. Only the Restoration of Charles created the poaching laws culminating in the 1723 Black Act which made 200 capital punishment offences that we view as typical from our 21st century eyes. It was also the 19thC Enclosure Acts that signed the death knell for many rights to the commons designated by the Forest Charter.I do suggest that the Charter was crucial in an on-going class war, between king, nobles and common people and as in the situation at the time nobles allied with peasants against the king. Later when nobles became transformed into the land-owning class of Gentleman Farmer, so to speak, they then combatted the poor small-holder and the landless to deprive them of their access to the forest.If the poor were unaware of the source of their rights it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't make use of or defend those rights. https://books.google.co.th/books?id=HxVMW9hGeDEC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=peasants+revolt+charter+of+the+forest&source=bl&ots=q4Ix83kGQ4&sig=VpCofMp2-NgVlbSc9OSDL8Waxms&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UuJwVfrMM4yWuQSJ34H4Cw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=peasants%20revolt%20charter%20of%20the%20forest&f=falseThe ramifications of the Charter of the. Forests was widespread. Robert L. Galoway in his paper "Accounts of some of the Earliest coal workings on the Banks of the Tyne" concludes that due to the Forest Charter's prohibition of the breaking of ground involved in the mining of coal this prevented the employment of coal in anything but a very small scale.
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?
Quote:but I'll need a bit of convincing that this charter brings anything positive to a thirteenth centuryserf.Can you be convinced that it brings something positive to the 21st Century working class?
Maybe there is a chancehttp://occupydemocracy.org.uk/2015/06/08/runnymede-eco-villagers-get-court-date-for-same-day-queen-arrives-for-magna-carta-celebrations/
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.
Or decide on the technicality that they are "wage-slaves"More links http://www.runnymede.community/ourstory/https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=60&v=CuVejWqOSSs
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.
Another view of the Great Charterhttp://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/06/12/happy-birthday-magna-carta-paul-craig-roberts/
Quote:A number of legal scholars have made the irrelevant point that the Magna Carter protected rights of the Church, nobles, and free men who were not enserfed, a small percentage of the population in the early 13th century. We hear the same about the US Constitution–it was something the rich did for themselves. I have no sympathy for debunking human achievements that, in the end, gave ordinary people liberty.I can't say i agree but we can make use of history, surely…
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.
Quote:Politicians today love to invoke Magna Carta as a bulwark for the rights of the ordinary man. But it would be more accurate to say that Magna Carta’s clauses variously offered special legal protection for the Catholic Church and the aristocracy, advocated tax breaks for the wealthiest, freed the City of London from regulatory oversight, promised total freedom of immigration and placed the burden of infrastructure maintenance on local communities instead of government. Any party that stood on a platform that was true to the spirit of Magna Carta today would be massacred at the polls.As with all mythical status historical documents, people pick and choose the bits they find relevant, but I knew there had to a reason it was popular with the Tories.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.