The Magna Carta [ 1215 AD ], the Great Charter led on to something approaching civilized government. It mattered. This does not mean that it was popular with everyone. It was not. Rogues with power liked it that way. They still do. That is why the first version had two major clauses which disappeared from subsequent revisions. They are also censored now by The Establishment, especially by the Jews who set up the Runnymede Trust & the Magna Carta 800th Committee. Notice that the Wiki does not tell us what the Charter said. The sealing in 1215 AD was followed by the Expulsion of Jews in 1290 AD; cause and effect? They were strongly connected.
The London Review Of Books provides learned commentary on books about the Great Charter at Back To Runnymede. Whether it is fair, honest, balanced or Propaganda is quite a different matter. Lies of omission can be just as effective as the lie direct; they are also easier to get away with. Before believing this piece look at Magna Carta Perverted then decide who has an agenda. The LRB does mention the clauses designed to prevent Jews screwing honest folk en passant in a dismissive way, sounding distinctly hostile.
Magna Carta Perverted
Magna Carta - A Libertarian Writes
Why The Magna Carta Celebrations Will Be Missing Two Crucial Paragraphs
There may still be eighteen months to go before the actual
anniversary itself but the commemoration
events are well underway to mark the day in 1215 that King John
was finally brought to heel by the barons and where limited government
and Western constitutional freedom was born. In Britain the BBC will broadcast TV documentaries, dramas and radio
programmes, and the event is to even have its own opera and specially
commissioned symphony. The occasion will be marked by commemorative
stamps and the Royal Mint will issue a special £2 coin. In America
high-powered lawyers and constitutional experts will be chewing over the
meaning of it all at banquets, dinners, lectures and exhibitions in
Boston, Washington and Philadelphia and 800 U.S.
lawyers are expected to make the pilgrimage to Runnymede beside
the Thames where the document was sealed. Across the English-speaking judicial world no single document is
probably more venerated than the
Great Charter. The Founding Fathers embedded it into the 1791
Bill of Rights in the shape of the
Fifth Amendment that says no-one “can be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law”. And today it is
regularly cited in newspaper editorials, political debates and Supreme
Court judgments. But amidst all the self-congratulation about habeas corpus, the right
to trial by jury and how it’s wisdom shines down the through the ages
and still has much to teach us, one awkward question should be asked,
however churlish it might seem.
Why have clauses 10 and 11 been airbrushed from history? These were
the ones inserted in the
original charter to protect widows and underage heirs
specifically from Jewish moneylenders by restricting the recovery of
debt out of the deceased debtor’s estate. But they are nowhere to be found in the official Magna Carta Trust
website nor the US National Archive
website which instead features the text of the later — and much
shorter — 1297 version. The
two clauses in the original 1215 Great Charter are: 10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews
any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall
not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may
hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything
except the principal sum contained in the bond. 11. And if anyone die indebted to the
Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if
any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be
provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out
of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due
to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to
others than Jews. You can, as they say in the British civil service, see the problem.
While unremarkable in their day these short paragraphs are pretty
incendiary stuff now and a headache for the organisers of the
Magna Carta Trust — Patron: Her Majesty The Queen — which obviously wants to
avoid causing offence to the richest and most powerful ethnic group in
the legal profession. Of the forty or so distinguished members of the
advisory board of the Magna Carta Trust about a quarter are
Jewish and they include: The organisers will also wish to avoid putting noses out of joint
with the
American Bar Association which is planning to drag 800 of its
members away from the expensive shops, hotels and fleshpots of
Chelsea and Kensington on a pilgrimage to the rolling meadow by the
Thames where the ABA erected the impressive domed monument that has sat
on there since 1957. There is a partial explanation for the omission of the offending
clauses. Like all statutes, the Magna Carta underwent a series of
revisions and was superseded by other charters drawn up in 1216, 1217
and 1225 and later. Only in the original was there a specific reference
to Jews (see Andrew Joyce’s “Background
to the Magna Carta”). The Magna Carta charter bought by David Rubenstein, on display in the
U.S. National Archives, for instance, makes no mention of the Jews but
it was produced in 1297, seven years after the Jews were expelled from
England. Nevertheless it is still a fact that the 800th anniversary in
2015 is a commemoration of the most important Charter, the original
toe-curlingly politically incorrect one. So what relevance has any of this for today? In the narrowest of
senses, very little because practically nothing from the Great Charter
is still on the statute books in Britain today. But more broadly it does shine a light into our medieval history and
specifically the role played by the Jews in medieval England.
In recent years there has been a concerted attempt to depict Jews as a
peaceful open community pursuing a wide variety of occupations. But as Andrew Joyce has so brilliantly
shown in the Occidental Observer this is no more than a fiction
concocted to hide the less salubrious truth. For the Jews of medieval
England were occupied entirely as moneylenders and enjoyed great
privileges and the special protection of the King. Not only were they
exempt from the usury ban on Christians, they were able to move about
the country without paying tolls and special weight was attributed to a
Jew’s oath, which was valid against that of 12 Christians. But the protection of the King depended purely on their
revenue-raising abilities. It has been said that just as the Jews could
soak the wealth from a land the King could squeeze it from them. The
money raising powers of the Jews were an important element on his side
in the struggle between Crown, barons, and municipalities which makes up
the constitutional history of England. But as could be expected this
earned them the hatred of the general population and this often found
violent expression. The Jews were seen as very much the King’s creatures
and to take against the moneylenders was to take against the King. What is interesting about clauses 10 and 11 is how prosaic and matter
of fact they are. They deal with the technical issue of how an underage
heir’s estate can be protected from the depredations of moneylenders
until he reaches his majority. There are no diabolical fantasies of
blood libel or any religious content at all. It is just business that is
at issue, but underlying the dry prose is anger at Jewish moneylending. In more recent times some people have chosen to place a generous
interpretation that the Jews were not being singled out at all. That is
because there is also a phrase “Debts owed to persons other than Jews
are to be dealt with similarly” in the original. In fact much popular anger remained against Jewish extortionate
financial practices—so much so that when King Edward returned from the
Crusades in 1274 he discovered so much land dispossession that he
decided to take action with the
Statute of Jewry. This outlawed usury altogether and tried to
entice Jews into the community by granting them a licence to farm. They
were also encouraged to make a living as merchants, farmers, craftsmen
or soldiers. Unfortunately when the 15-year trial period had elapsed, it was
discovered that the Jews had covertly continued their moneylending and
other sharp practices such as coin-clipping. In 1290, King Edward I
issued an
edict expelling all Jews from England. The expulsion edict
remained in force for the rest of the Middle Ages, the culmination of
over 200 years of conflict on the matters of usury. Comments are closed. In its 1957 Charter, the Objectives of the Magna Carta Trust were
defined as: the perpetuation of the principles of Magna Carta The Trust’s Statement of Objectives for the 800th Anniversary
Committee. Chair of Heritage Lottery Fund Dame
Jenny Abramsky [ Jew
];
Magna Carta ex Wiki Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a
King of England by a group of his subjects, the
feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their
privileges. The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that
led to the rule of
constitutional law in the
English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the
colonization of American colonies as England's legal system was used as a
model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems. The 1215 charter required King
John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was
not
arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the
sense of non-serf)
could be punished except through the
law of the land, a right that still exists. It was preceded and directly influenced by the
Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King
Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219,[2]
and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions
excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been
present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297
version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the
statute
books of
England and Wales. Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century
nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three
clauses currently remain part of the
law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of
the
uncodified constitution.
Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all
times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary
authority of the despot".[3]
In a 2005 speech,
Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are
recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4]
the others being the
Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the
Petition of Right (1628), the
Bill of Rights (1689), and the
Act of Settlement (1701). It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which
survived to become a "sacred text".[5]
In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the
power of kings, but by the time of the
English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to
show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in
New
England[6]
and inspired later constitutional documents, including the
United States Constitution.
Magna Carta Explained By The Economist
Magna Carta ex Wiki Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a
King of England by a group of his subjects, the
feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their
privileges. The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that
led to the rule of
constitutional law in the
English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the
colonization of American colonies as England's legal system was used as a
model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems. The 1215 charter required King
John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was
not
arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the
sense of non-serf)
could be punished except through the
law of the land, a right that still exists. It was preceded and directly influenced by the
Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King
Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited. It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219,[2]
and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions
excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been
present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297
version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the
statute
books of
England and Wales. Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century
nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three
clauses currently remain part of the
law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of
the
uncodified constitution.
Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all
times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary
authority of the despot".[3]
In a 2005 speech,
Lord Woolf described it as "first of a series of instruments that now are
recognised as having a special constitutional status",[4]
the others being the
Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the
Petition of Right (1628), the
Bill of Rights (1689), and the
Act of Settlement (1701). It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which
survived to become a "sacred text".[5]
In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the
power of kings, but by the time of the
English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to
show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in
New
England[6]
and inspired later constitutional documents, including the
United States Constitution.[7]............
Clauses in Runnymede Charter but not in later Charters
The Magna Carta or Great Charter
was forced onto King
John of England on 15 June 1215 at
Runnymede by the Barons of England. The
Background To The Magna Carta gives a good summary of the politics, the
feel, the reasons. John was a spendthrift in the hands of the Jews, which is a
bad situation. The Jews carried on oppressing, getting hated, then finally
Expelled in 1290 AD. They were
imported again in 1657 by
Oliver Cromwell, an early communist allowing them to infiltrate
society.
This is why Her Majesty's
Government is controlled by Jews. That is
Why The Magna Carta Celebrations Will Be Missing Two Crucial Paragraph. Politics
rears its ugly head.
PS The Runnymede Trust was set up
Jews.
King John was idle, spendthrift & incompetent. He was no loss. He had the
Charter annulled by the Pope 11 years later. Fundamentally it was a power
play between King and barons. The rest of us benefitted by accident rather
than design.
by
Francis Carr Begbie
If there is one thing our elites enjoy it is giving each other a big
pat on the back and the extravagant celebrations planned for the 800th
anniversary of the Magna Carta will give them lots of opportunities to
do just that.
The Magna Carta 800th Committee
Objectives of the 800th Anniversary
of the Magna Carta in 2015:
the preservation for reverent public use of sites associated with Magna Carta
the commemoration triennially and on such other special occasions as shall be
determined by the Trust,
of the grant of Magna Carta, as the course of the constitutional liberties of
all English-speaking peoples, and a common bond of peace between them.
Members of the 800th Advisory Board
Lord Mayor of London Alderman
Michael Bear
[ Jew ];
Speaker of the House of Commons Rt Hon
John Bercow MP [
Jew ];
Former Chief of Defence Staff and currently Lord Warden and Admiral of the
Cinque Ports, President of the Pilgrims Society, Admiral the Lord Boyce GCB OBE
DL;
US Supreme Court Justice Professor
Stephen Breyer [ Jew
];
Chief Executive of the British Library Dame
Lynne Brindley DBE;
The Rt Rev the Lord Bishop of London Richard Chartres;
Chief Executive Officer, HCL AXON and Corporate Vice President, HCL Technologies
Stephen Cardell;
Lord Chancellor Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP;
Supreme Court Justice of the United Kingdom Rt Hon the Lord (Tony) Clarke;
British Council Chairman
Vernon Ellis [ accountant ];
Chairman of the Magna Carta Committee of Australia Air Chief Marshal
David Evans;
Former Lord Chancellor Rt Hon the Lord (Charlie) Falconer, QC;
Former Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States Hon Tom
Foley;
Chair of the Arts Council, England, Dame Liz Forgan DBE;
UK Attorney-General Rt
Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP;
Lloyd Grossman (Heritage Alliance)
[ Jew ];
Former Lord Speaker Rt Hon the Baroness
( Helene
) Hayman, Baroness Hayman [ Jew ];
Cambridge Emeritus Professor Sir
James Holt [ historian of
the period ];
University of Virginia Professor A.E. Dick Howard;
Former Lord Chancellor Rt Hon the Lord Irvine of Lairg;
Chairman of the National Trust Sir Simon Jenkins;
Former Governor of Virginia Tim Kaine;
Former Lord Chancellor Rt Hon the Lord Mackay of Clashfern;
Former Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago and Former Chair of the
Commonwealth Hon. Patrick Manning;
Former First Secretary of Wales Rhodri Morgan;
Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago Hon Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar;
Supreme Court Justice of the United Kingdom Rt Hon the Lord
Nicholas Phillips of Worth Matravers [ Jew - see
Nicholas Phillips
];
Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission Trevor Philips;
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr.,
Chairman of Carlyle Group and Magna Carta private owner
David Rubenstein [
Jew ];
Former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, now Chairman,
Environment Agency, Rt Hon the Lord (Chris) Smith of Finsbury,
Former Lord Chancellor, Minister for Justice and Home Secretary, Rt Hon
Jack Straw MP [ Jew ];
Former Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson;
Professor of Medieval History, University of East Anglia Professor Nicholas
Vincent;
Former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Cabinet Minister Lord Waldegrave of
North Hill PC;
Dean of Canterbury The Rt Rev Robert Willis,
Archbishop of Canterbury Most Rev and Rt Hon Rowan Williams;
Former Chairman of the Magna Carta Trust Rt. Hon the Lord
Harry Woolf
LCJ [ Jew ];
Marymount College Professor Kenton Worcester;
Chief Executive of the Charity Commission Sam Younger;
The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks [ Jew ];
Secretary General of the International Bar Association Mr David W Rivkin
David W. Rivkin [ fingered by
JewWatch Jew ];
Former President of the American Bar Association and Chairman of ABA Magna Carta
Committee Stephen Zack;
QUOTE
Magna Carta
(Latin for Great Charter),[1]
also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England, is an
Angevin
charter
originally issued in
Latin in the year 1215.
UNQUOTE
The truth has its uses.
The Economist manages to sound knowledgeable while not mentioning money
lending Jews. Their story is probably factual; more lying by omission that
the lie direct. Apparently it mattered to Americans setting up their
Constitution circa 1776.
Blackstone
certainly did.
QUOTE
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter),[1]
also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the
Liberties of England, is an
Angevin
charter
originally issued in
Latin in the year 1215.
UNQUOTE
The Wiki is being factual rather than giving a feel for the
pressures involved.
3 Trackbacks to "Why the Magna Carta anniversary celebrations will be missing two crucial paragraphs"