If King John would have refused to sign the Magna Carta, would would the results have been in the short, and long term?
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.
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.
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.
IOTL some of them invited the crown prince of France to come over and take the job.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?
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...