King John the lacklands refusal

birdboy2000

Banned
Given that King John didn't exactly uphold the Magna Carta OTL, not a heck of a lot. The barons' war still happens, although it might be sped up a bit.

If the result of the war is anything like OTL's the barons get their charter anyway and people talk about 1217 instead of 1215.

If through butterflies John not only survives the war but somehow wins decisively, you've probably altered the history of thirteenth-century England quite a bit.

In the long run with regard to the monarch's power, however, it doesn't change as much as one might think. England wasn't the only country where the nobles successfully checked the power of the throne, and neither Poland's nor Sweden's nobility needed a 13th-century document to justify resisting absolutism.
 
But they had rather different circumstances in the thirteenth century and following. If John isn't checked, when will royal power be checked?

England was pretty tilted towards stronger royal power in this period.
 
IOTL John actually renounced it afterwards anyway, on the grounds that a coerced signature wasn't binding. It was then re-issued early in the reign of his son King Henry III.
 
Who also renounced it, at various points.

Look, can I be blunt here? The Magna Carta is not QUITE as important as it's made out to be--more of a 'The King will not touch existing rights A, B, C' than an establishment of new rights. (I'm serious--among the rights protected by the Carta, the right of barons to use torture.) While it had a place in English/British history, a lot of the reason for its prominence is giving the Whigs a more convenient 'turning point' of English government than the REAL one, the Civil War, with its whole inconvenient regicide...
 
Who also renounced it, at various points.

Look, can I be blunt here? The Magna Carta is not QUITE as important as it's made out to be--more of a 'The King will not touch existing rights A, B, C' than an establishment of new rights. (I'm serious--among the rights protected by the Carta, the right of barons to use torture.) While it had a place in English/British history, a lot of the reason for its prominence is giving the Whigs a more convenient 'turning point' of English government than the REAL one, the Civil War, with its whole inconvenient regicide...

It is - even without that specific use - a good precedent that "the king is not above the law" type arguments.

If instead of the Magna Carta checking royal power we have (which would take more than just John refusing to sign) we have the barons forced to submit on John's terms, his son probably has less problems with the barons - since any situation where the barons are forced to submit on John's terms is going to mean a rather dramatic boost to the forces of monarchical superiority/Johanite loyalists, which leads to a rather different development.

But "precedent" is worthless until used, so I don't disagree on the issue of the turning point.
 
It is - even without that specific use - a good precedent that "the king is not above the law" type arguments.

If instead of the Magna Carta checking royal power we have (which would take more than just John refusing to sign) we have the barons forced to submit on John's terms, his son probably has less problems with the barons - since any situation where the barons are forced to submit on John's terms is going to mean a rather dramatic boost to the forces of monarchical superiority/Johanite loyalists, which leads to a rather different development.

Or more problems with the barons as they try to get out from under Henry's bootheel. As happened quite frequently in England, and on the continent--King makes strides towards more power, feudal subjects react. This sort of back and forth was pretty normal for the time. Like I said, it's not without significance, but it's hardly the unique, nation-defining event it's frequently made into.
 
Or more problems with the barons as they try to get out from under Henry's bootheel. As happened quite frequently in England, and on the continent--King makes strides towards more power, feudal subjects react. This sort of back and forth was pretty normal for the time. Like I said, it's not without significance, but it's hardly the unique, nation-defining event it's frequently made into.

Yeah. I'm saying less only because John managing to do that means that the baronial ability to do something back is going to be temporally crippled - John getting "his terms' is going to mean a pretty harsh suppression.

But yeah, sooner or latter the barons will try to get what they got in the Magna Carta and similar again. Its not a struggle the crown can win in the sense of just crushing baronial opposition for good. Not - at a minimum - until the middle class bureaucrats take over government, and even that still sees the nobles being unignorable.
 
To go back to the OP's question, the issue here is that when John was made to sign the Magna Carta, he was already captured by the barons and essentially having his throne held to ransom by them. This isn't a question of whether or not he can refuse to sign it and then hold out long enough that the barons fail to muster the power to oppose him over it, because at this point they have already de facto got all the power they need to do anything. What it comes down to is whether they go through with their threats, or whether their posturing was all a bluff and they are too scared of what happens when you kill a King with no-one to replace him with. Do they depose him, or are they not brave enough? Do they promote one of their own to replace him, or find a relative of John, or do they try to rule as a council of Barons? Presumably either way they go it will be a short-term solution as the sheer magnitude of what they are doing makes the political landscape volatile and open to challenge...
 
IOTL John actually renounced it afterwards anyway, on the grounds that a coerced signature wasn't binding. It was then re-issued early in the reign of his son King Henry III.

Yeah. He renegged on the Magna Carta because the only reasons why he consented to go to Runneymede was because he was trying to appease the barons and prevent a civil war and a French invasion. He argued that he gave Royal Assent under duress and that therefore Royal Assent was not binding.
 
Do they depose him, or are they not brave enough? Do they promote one of their own to replace him, or find a relative of John, or do they try to rule as a council of Barons?
IOTL some of them invited the crown prince of France to come over and take the job.
 
Who also renounced it, at various points.

Look, can I be blunt here? The Magna Carta is not QUITE as important as it's made out to be--more of a 'The King will not touch existing rights A, B, C' than an establishment of new rights. (I'm serious--among the rights protected by the Carta, the right of barons to use torture.) While it had a place in English/British history, a lot of the reason for its prominence is giving the Whigs a more convenient 'turning point' of English government than the REAL one, the Civil War, with its whole inconvenient regicide...

A point you miss in your otherwise excellent analysis is the effect it had on English Common law. Judges could refer to a written document when making their rulings and the fact that the king was not above the law set a precident for all to follow.

I am not sure that the Civil War was the real turning point. I think that Henry VIII set a precident with the Acts of Sucession (parliment could set the rules for who could be king / queen) but to me more important is the Glorious Revolution and parliment dealing with William and Mary (limiting the power of the throne).
 
Top