fandomhigh | History of Medieval England - Thursday 6th Period: Discussion 6: The Magna Carta

------

Cameron signs in.

Elizabeth signs in, with a large cup of coffee.

(no subject)

lovelylana.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 03:29 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

swerval_zero - 2006-02-24 04:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

mparkerceo.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:10 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:14 (UTC) - Expand

Okay, folks. Do we want to have a criminal or civil trial? Is our plaintiff, Mr. Mitchell, bringing suit against our defendant, Ms. Mal Doran, for her property -- or her life?

(Much too geeky: Glanvill Online (http://vi.uh.edu/pages/bob/elhone/glanvill.html) -- a legal treatise written about 1188.)

"Life?" Cameron squeaks a little as he realises that yes, he's going to do a trial against his ex.

"Well, surely the fact that it's a plaintiff bringing the suit, and not the prosecution, means that it's a civil trail," Elizabeth said.

"Actually, that was something that the monarchs were attempting to codify into law at the time, the idea that crimes were a crime against the state. At the time, there was still reminants of the Danegeld in much of England, where if you killed someone, you could pay a fine to that person's family and be free of guilt. So we actually could get away with a criminal trial with a clearly defined plaintiff."

"I, um, what Elizabeth said."

"I think anything else would be damn entertaining and awful. I dare you to make it a criminal trial, sir." Parker's grinning because she does *not* mean this. And she's fairly certain Dr. Pierson won't go for it.

Vala looked more than a little disturbed by this thought. "No, no! No 'life' here! I vote for property." She pauses for a second, wincing. "Maybe just a little bit of property."

"So, you're okay with being found guilty and having your hand cut off?"

Methos might be enjoying this a bit too much.

Re: DISCUSSION 1: The Trial

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:30 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 1: The Trial

prof-methos.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 1: The Trial

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:40 (UTC) - Expand

The Magan Carta was not the first document of its kind in England. Henry I was pressured into signing a similar agreement. But he was not effectively kidnapped and forced into it, and even though the Magna Carta was initially set aside, it kept coming up in people's consciousness. Is an absolute monarchy better or worse than a monarchy checked by an equally unelected oligarcy?

"Depends on who the guy on the throne is and who the oligarchy is?" Cameron said. "If your monarch is corrupt and there's an oligarchy to balance him out, then at least you got some sort of counter balance."

"Worse," Elizabeth replied. "An absolute monarchy is just a inherited dictatorship. Perhaps even worse, because of instead of taking power forcibly, they believe that they have a right to it; such as the Divine Right of Kings.

Sticking with England, but a few hundred years later, Charles the first was an absolute monarch, believed in the Divine Right, was an awful king, and couldn't control his own country. And he got executed."

"But the action against Charles wasn't a democratic one, not completely. It was a faction of the duly elected House of Commons, but all they really did was replace a hereditary dictator with a theocratic one. And then, when Cromwell died, they invited the hereditary monarchy back."

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

notcalledlizzie.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 22:19 (UTC) - Expand

Vala was frowning, finally she gave up and asked: "Oligarky? Is that like ~~Jaffa~~ soldiers or something? ~~Brave or otherwise?~~ Because someone with absolute power can get pretty scary ~~especially when it's over your brain and body too~~, and but a lot of people in the ~~universe~~ world seem to go for it."

"Oligarchy is when a limited number of non-elected people have control of the government, instead of just one. And as an example of absolute power in this era being scary... a noblewoman named Matilda de Braose accused King John of murdering his nephew. He locked her and her son up in a dungeon and let them starve to death. They found her teeth marks on his body."

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

prof-methos.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:33 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

prof-methos.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:46 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

mparkerceo.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:49 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

swerval_zero - 2006-02-24 06:52 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

mparkerceo.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 06:55 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

swerval_zero - 2006-02-24 06:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: DISCUSSION 2: Magna Carta

aka-vala.livejournal.com - 2006-02-24 07:32 (UTC) - Expand

"If you've got an absolute monarchy, you've got one person to keep replacing," Parker said slowly. "With an oligarchy, you've got a dozen to a hundred. Who still won't listen to anyone if they don't want to, but. Their scope of influence is reduced. I think I have to vote for that oligarchy. In theory."

Since history is basically the study of gossip... as Ms. Parker brought up in class on Tuesday, King John was accused of murdering his nephew in order to claim the throne. Arthur of Brittany was the only son of John's older brother. But he was fifteen when Richard the Lionhearted died, and medieval nobility was uneasy about a teenager in charge. John at least was a known quanity.