Magna Carta

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
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.

Magna Carta - A Libertarian Writes
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.

 

Why The Magna Carta Celebrations Will Be Missing Two Crucial Paragraphs
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.

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.

3 Trackbacks to "Why the Magna Carta anniversary celebrations will be missing two crucial paragraphs"

  1. on May 19, 2013 at 1:41 pm
  2. on May 19, 2013 at 2:41 pm
  3. on May 19, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Comments are closed.

Magna Carta 800th Committee

The Magna Carta 800th Committee

 

Objectives of the 800th Anniversary
of the Magna Carta in 2015:

In its 1957 Charter, the Objectives of the Magna Carta Trust were defined as:

the perpetuation of the principles of Magna Carta
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.

The Trust’s Statement of Objectives for the 800th Anniversary Committee.

Members of the 800th Advisory Board

Chair of Heritage Lottery Fund Dame Jenny Abramsky [ Jew ];
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;

 

Magna Carta ex Wiki
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.

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.
UNQUOTE
The truth has its uses.

 

Magna Carta Explained By The Economist
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.

 

Magna Carta ex Wiki
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.

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

  • Clauses 10 and 11 related to money lending and Jews in England. Jews were particularly involved in money lending because Christian teachings on usury did not apply to them. Clause 10 said that children would not pay interest on a debt they had inherited while they were under age. Clause 11 said that the widow and children should be provided for before paying an inherited debt. The charter concludes this section with the words "Debts owing to other than Jews shall be dealt with likewise", so it is debatable to what extent the Jews were being singled out by these clauses.
  • Clauses 12 and 14 state that taxes (in the language of the time, "scutage or aid") can only be levied and assessed by the common counsel of the realm. See Challenges to the King's power for more detail.
  • Clause 15 stated that the King would not grant anyone the right to take an aid (i.e. money) from his free men
  • Clauses 25 and 26 dealt with debt and taxes
  • Clause 27 with intestacy.
  • Clause 42 stated that it was lawful for subjects to leave the kingdom without prejudicing their allegiance (except for outlaws and during war)
  • Clause 45 said that the King should only appoint as "justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs" those who knew the law and would keep it well. In the United States, the Supreme Court of California interpreted clause 45 in 1974 as establishing a requirement at common law that a defendant faced with the potential of incarceration is entitled to a trial overseen by a legally trained judge.[49]
  • Clause 48 stated that all evil customs connected with forests were to be abolished
  • Clause 49 provided for the return of hostages held by the King. (John held hostages from the families of important nobles he wished to ensure remained loyal, as other English monarchs had before him.)
  • Clause 50 stated that no member of the d'Athée family could be a royal officer.
  • Clause 51 called for all foreign knights and mercenaries to leave the realm.
  • Clause 52 dealt with restoration of those "disseised" (i.e. those dispossessed of property. See (for example) Assize of novel disseisin )
  • Clause 53 was similar to 52 but relating to forests
  • Clause 55 regarded remittance of unjust fines
  • Clauses 57 concerned restoration of disseised Welshmen
  • Clauses 58 and 59 provided for the return of Welsh and Scottish hostages
  • Clauses 61 provided for the application and observation of the Charter by twenty-five of the rebellious barons. See Challenges to the King's power for more on clause 61.
  • Clause 62 pardoned those who had rebelled against the king
  • Clause 63 said that the charter was binding on King John and his heirs. However this version of the charter was renounced by John, with the support of the Pope. The smaller 1225/1297 charters (which actually became law) contain similar text, stating that the monarch and their heirs would not seek to infringe or damage the liberties in the charter, and that the charter is to be observed "in perpetuity".

  • UNQUOTE
    The Wiki is being factual rather than giving a feel for the pressures involved.