Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty

Product Information

If someone was due to inherit lands and titles, for instance, they would be forced to pay John large sums to actually claim their inheritance. In the 17th century, Charles I would eventually lose his head over his perverse attempts to revive a feudal monarchy, to arbitrarily imprison his enemies, and rule by tyranny and extortion. Obviously, John had no intention of honoring "the treaty that would impose devastating new restrictions on every future King of England's ability to govern the realm as he pleased. As always, Dan Jones’ way of explaining history makes reading his books easy and enjoyable, just the right amount of detail.

While this book may not be the only book about the subject one would want to read, it certainly demonstrates that historian Dan Jones has been able to profitably expand upon his interest in the Plantagenet dynasty. His overbearing presence irritated the barons who had grown used to operating with a great deal of autonomy under previous kings. I didn’t know was tied to a line of kings that I (because of my children and because of Walt Disney) was familiar with: King Richard and (former, prince) King John.This volume has a different focus: what was the social, economic, legal, and religious background to the Charter - what was England like between 1199 and 1215? Whatever its origin, that clause is of interest because it illustrates the way that the western European elite were talking and thinking about kingship in 1215.

He presents a leader who inherited primarily the bad aspects of ruling from his father with the exception of being a good administrator, an important trait for someone planning on taking as much as possible from his people. In 1776 American patriots, inspired by that long-ago defiance, dared to pick up arms against another English king and to demand even more far-reaching rights.There is a section on what happened between 1215 and now, and a couple of wonderful quotes from David Cameron and Winston Churchill which made me laugh - albeit wryly. Also included are references to the charter in the following centuries up to 2015, the 800th anniversary. citation needed] His son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law. In many ways, the author's previous work relating to the political history of the High Middle Ages in England serves as an appropriate context to this book, and the author wisely shares this context with the reader who may not be familiar with the Plantagenet origin of the problems that led to the civil war in England that produced the famous document. I recommend this book to anyone who loves history and the true stories of governments and how they evolved.

It is not as boring or dry as I thought it would be, even the clauses that have become irrelevant to our modern lifestyle. For ten years Dan wrote a weekly column for the London Evening Standard and his writing has also appeared in newspapers and magazines including The Sunday Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, Smithsonian, GQ and The Spectator. There are copious illustrations and page breaks that will suit those with shorter attention spans but at the same time, those who prefer a meaty read will not be let down. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. In the ensuing dispute, the barons had taken control of London, cutting the king off from a key source of revenue.

A thrilling dynastic history of royal intrigues, violent skullduggery, and brutal warfare across two centuries of British history. I almost didn’t begin this book, mainly because I had attempted to read another Jones book, The Templars: The Rise and Spectacular Fall of God's Holy Warriors, just a few weeks ago, but found it too boring and, in a rare move of mine, ceased reading not even half way through it.

It had nothing to do with democracy, as Jones makes very clear, and everything to do with the rights of the barons who were opposing King John at an incredibly tumultuous time in the kingdom. Earl of Pembroke, right-hand man to three kings and regent for a fourth, Marshal was one of the most celebrated men in Europe, yet is virtually unknown today, his impact and influence largely forgotten. It fell out of favor by the more imperial Tudors (it’s not even mentioned in Shakespeare’s play King John).

Dan Jones points out that the document is more important for what it represents rather than what it says. For example, it became a political weapon in the long war between John's inept son Henry III and his 'warmongering' grandson Edward I against Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester during the 1250s and 1260s. He then goes into greater detail on King John, a son who joined in open rebellion against his father and had also conspired with the french king against his brother.