This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The lead to the article is uncited and contradicts itself. "At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes." If Henry 3 had granted this as a Charter in 1217, why did he need to re-issue it "in exchange for a grant of new taxes" in 1225? The entire article reads like something out of a Roman Catholic "Everything you wanted to know about the Magna Carta But Were Afraid to Ask." The article all but says that roman catholic judges would be excommunicated if they accepted Magna Carta 1215, per Innocent III's bull of annulment, that's the only power the Pope might have had, a power to excommunicate people who would not adhere to his bulls. Everything makes much more sense if we get rid of this delusional content that says the Pope could directly annul a Royal Charter in England---what actually happened is that the Pope threatened everyone who executes the Charter with excommunication, and, therefore, at the time, disinheritance, etc. But it also says in Magna Carta that no one can be disinherited, except by judgment of peers or by the law of the land, the bull of the pope being neither...looking over the whole article, it seems mostly like lay-history PoV for people who somehow manage to think everything the Catholics thinks without actually being Roman Catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:C2D:D1FA:B413:5785 ( talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Several times on the Talk Page you've made sweeping judgements (of your own?) without citing any Reliable Sources. To make changes, that is what is required on Wikipedia. No Original Research. 104.169.31.99 ( talk) 05:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

80.32.232.224 (
talk) 09:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a history teacher I am 38 years old, I want to tell you the truth of the magna carta.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead suggests that it's a "myth" to think that Magna Carta formally codified ancient and pre-existing (but hitherto unwritten) liberties. But is this really the consensus? No citation is given, and while I've no doubt that there are historians who do indeed think that that's a myth, I'd be interested to know more about the current thinking on this. I don't think anyone is suggesting that there was a written constitution pre-dating Magna Carta but the lead as currently written seems to dismiss out of hand the idea that people at the time had a sense of ancient liberties. Is there a debate about this? I note for example that one of the foremost English scholars, Nicholas Vincent, says in his recent book that "What King John offered to do in 1215 was not to create a written constitution but to defend and uphold law, liberties and customs already considered ‘just,’ ‘good’ and perhaps above all ‘ancient’ … To this extent, it was not the foundation of English law but an attempt to preserve or restate something regarded as much more ancient and binding." So there's one dissenter from the "myth" view, for starters. I don't pretend to know how many there are but I'd be interested to learn more. In the meantime, shouldn't we change the lead to say something less definitive, such as that the "ancient liberties" view is "regarded" as a myth or even "regarded by some" as a myth, rather than simply dismissing it as "badly flawed" and leaving it as case closed? Brooklyn Eagle ( talk) 17:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that the Magna Carta was really based on an ancient English constitution tracing back to the Anglo Saxon period is regarded as a myth by modern historians; it wasn't, although it suited various people over the centuries to claim otherwise, and some no doubt believed that it as. If you look down to the 16th century section of the article, you'll see the extensive citations for that view. In the chapter you've quoted, Vincent says that "Magna Carta was intended to not to make new laws but to ensure that respect was paid to the good old laws of the past", despite the actually rather revolutionary nature of some the ideas in the Carta. He's not arguing that there really was an ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution captured in the Magna Carta - see chapters two and five of the same book for more details on his argument. Hchc2009 ( talk) 18:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your prompt response. I'm not disputing that it might be a myth, I'm just wondering if we should be so definitive about it. The 16th century section says that "many" regard it as a myth. And to the extent that evidence is presented of it being a myth, that seems to be something of a straw-man argument, in that it relates to the belief in a constitution that was written. (Evidence cited against this include that the documents were improperly interpreted etc). But no one is arguing that such a constitution (if constitution is even the right word) had ever been written down, any more than the modern British "constitution" is written. What there was - and (at least in the popular consciousness) remains - is a belief that Magna Carta codified beliefs/notions/traditions (call them what you will) that already existed. The Charter did not, for example, invent the idea that the king was subject to the law, or that "free men" had the protection of the law, it put those ideas in writing (because there had rarely if ever been a king who so blatantly ignored them). That at least is a view that is widely held, including by Vincent. There's simply no other way to interpret his statement that Magna Carta "restated" something that was regarded as "much more ancient and binding". You can't "restate" something that hasn't already been stated, in at least some form. Moreover, the lead's second reference to the "myth" makes no mention of a constitution of any kind, either written or otherwise. It simply states (without any citation) that the belief that there were "ancient personal liberties" is a myth. It's one thing to assert that there was no written constitution pre-dating Magna Carta. I'd have no quarrel with that. But it's another thing altogether to state, without citation and as if it were uncontested fact, that there were no personal liberties prior to Magna Carta. Surely? Brooklyn Eagle ( talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

You have to put words like "restate" in the context of the surrounding paragraph - Vincent is saying what King John "offered" to do, and talking about what contemporaries "regarded" or thought; nowhere, that I've seen, does Vincent suggest there's an ancient English constitution enshrined in the Carta. Vincent argues that the document was quite radical, not conservative; he talks about its "truly revolutionary interpretation of royal sovereignty as something subject...to popular consent" etc., and puts a lot of stress on Stephen Langton's intellectual contribution to it. All the historians I seen agree, as the article states, that the 16th-century theory that there was a set of ancient English customs and laws, temporarily overthrown by the Norman invasion of 1066, which were then recovered in 1215 and recorded in Magna Carta, is fundamentally incorrect; many, including many of the specialists in this area, use the term "political myth" to describe that post-16th-century argument. (Vincent seems to prefer the term "legend" to "myth", by the way). I've seen no modern historian argue against using the term "political myth" (but happy to be corrected!). The article doesn't make any comments on whether there were political liberties prior to Magna Carta or not, which isn't directly relevant to the debate over the 16th century historiography. If you haven't already, I'd urge reading the works cited in footnote g, which give quite a lot of background here. Hchc2009 ( talk) 06:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Historians are entitled to their views but unless hitherto-undiscovered contemporary evidence from the period has been discovered supporting their views such views remain their personal opinions and as such are mere conjecture. Such conjecture may help sell books aimed at the popular market but it is not 'history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 ( talk) 08:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

If a historical work has gone through a proper peer-review process, no, it is not the historian's "personal viewpoint" - that's absolute rubbish. 50.111.23.144 ( talk) 15:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Old English Coronation oath ( https://earlyenglishlaws.ac.uk/laws/texts/sacr-cor/view/#edition/translation) suggests that these historians are wrong, there is a very well developed conception of Christian Kingship that endures from the Aethelbriht, the first English King to receive baptism, all the way to the present day. Alfred's Dooms, for example, contain a restatement of the ten commandments and sections of Mosaic Law. An interesting window into this is that in magna carta 1215, there is a clause "nos non faciemus justitiarios constabularios vicecomites vel ballivos nisi de talibus qui sciant legem regni et eam bene velint observare," and this means "we will not make justices constables sheriffs or ministers except of such who know legem regni and mean to observe it well." Legem regni appears once in the vulgate bible, what Samuel told the people (Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom 1 Sam. 10:25, KJV). Legem regni is translated "manner of the kingdom," and it translates the hebrew "mishpat hammelukah." In any case, this suggests that there is a "manner of the kingdom" that the king observes and that he must also make his ministers to observe it; viewing this as a gratuitous grant makes no sense, because of the "manner of the kingdom" is simply the king's will, there is no limitation. Hence, this must be a clause of limitation, just as we see in the anglo-saxon coronation oath, the king is subject to the law, the law makes the king, and this has been true since anglo-saxon times. This is a topic that deserves far better scholarly attention than it gets, mostly due to the ignorance of academics of old english and latin and hebrew---the days of polymaths like John Selden, Edward Coke, etc. are mostly over, so we instead are left with piddling intellects who make bald assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7A3C:9100:10C3:BEB9:1FC3:DB88 ( talk) 17:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a suggested change to the article? Richard Nevell ( talk) 17:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I am a teacher and this wording and use of the word "myth" does my students a great disservice as now they are very confused about it after reading this wikipedia post. This is one of those instances that brings down the credibility of wikipedia as a resource which teachers can refer their students to in order to start their research, because it leads them on rabbit trails without being able to properly focus on the basics first. Our texts never infers in any way that the Magna Marta has a minor role or is a myth but reaffirms it's importance in history to the British people, and the impact it has had on the development of jurisprudence throughout the British Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleeathandong ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The use of the term is carefully sourced in the article and carefully defined. This does not negatively impact Wikipedia's credibility. Richard Nevell ( talk) 21:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

Can someone please add a link to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9 so that people can read the Magna Carta for themselves from the official source?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.250.251 ( talk) 11:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's already there. See the entry Text of the Magna Carta 1297 as in force today near the very the bottom of the page, in the External links section, Texts subsection. MichaelMaggs ( talk) 12:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we add a link to this source in the history, Great Charter of 1215 section, or maybe just as further reading? It includes a transcript of Pope Innocent III's bull that negated the original Magna Carta.

https://magnacartaresearch.org/read/feature_of_the_month/Oct_2015

It provides a direct source for the "null and void" quotation used in the section - there are four sources but all of them are books that are not directly linked. The bull itself might make for an interesting (separate) article. I retired a while back from WP or I'd WP:SOFIXIT but I did not have a healthy relationship with the project so I keep it at arm's length. 2601:601:9D00:10:18CD:66B3:B49E:136A ( talk) 19:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not think it would be a good idea to added a fifth source but the whole website is obviously suitable as an external link so I have added it. Dudley Miles ( talk) 22:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

King john didn't voluntarily agree to magna carta, the barons put him under duress and because of this the vatican (pope) doesn't recognize the legitimacy of magna carta. 185.111.131.198 ( talk) 13:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The article already explains the Pope's role. Dudley Miles ( talk) 13:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Magna Carta has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is no section on the monuments to magna carter. There is one near the island in the thames where it was supposedly signed and this kind if cultural observance of the document should be acknowledged Pupswand ( talk) 08:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know which monument you have in mind, but the Magna Carta Memorial is mentioned in the "Interpretation" subsection, and is illustrated in the "Modern legacy" subsection. The Runnymede article lists several other (lesser) memorials in the vicinity. Some tweaks could be made to mention them here as well, but I don't feel there's a major hole in the article. GrindtXX ( talk) 10:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton ( talk) 15:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The article states that there are four original copies of the Magna Carta and lists their locations, but there is also one in Washington, DC claiming to be one of the four ^[1]. Should the section be updated, and if so, which one needs to be replaced? — MaviLight ( talk) 14:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@ MaviLight The US National Archives describe theirs as "one of four surviving originals of the 1297 Magna Carta", which is correct but the key bit there is the date.

Since the charter had quite a complicated history of being issued, re-confirmed, etc, there's a little nuance around what's meant by "original" - there are four copies ("exemplifications") of the very first 1215 charter, one of the 1216, four of the 1217, four of the 1225, four of the 1297, and seven of the 1300 charter. (The 1297 one is significant as this is the one which lasted into contemporary law - it's the one still in force today, to some degree)

So while theirs is an original of the 1297 charter, it's not an original of the original charter, if that makes sense. Andrew Gray ( talk) 21:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this is a fantastic explanation. Thanks. — MaviLight ( talk) 19:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia there is a variation in how Magna Carta is referenced, some with 'the' and some without, some in italics and some without.

The following pages show that the word 'the' isn't used:

British Library - [1] https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta

UK parliament - [2] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/magnacarta/magnacartaclauses/

And the following page shows that italics are not required, as the Magna Carta page says it is a royal charter:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Neither

Therefore should:

the Magna Carta

be replaced with:

Magna Carta

I started this talk topic to see if I am understanding this correctly, and if so, should all pages across Wikipedia be updated to use this style?

For example, John, King of England needs both changes. Random56653 ( talk) 17:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The definite article "the" should absolutely be in front of any use of "Magna Carta" anything else looks and sounds ridiculous. And yes I'm aware that common usage seems to be trending in the other direction. You can always count on the British to completely fail at their own language. 2600:1700:E190:C080:7A89:AC61:22BA:857B ( talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just updated John, King of England to remove both the italics and 'the'. Random56653 ( talk) 00:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't sound fluent to me without the "the". Pretty sure my history teacher always added "the". Confusingly, the history book I checked just now alternates between using "the" (for example, the title of the section is called "The Magna Carta") and not using "the" (After lengthy negotiations, John met the barons in 1215 at Runnymede and was forced to approve the charter of rights later called Magna Carta.). ^[1] – Novem Linguae ( talk) 02:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The British Library, and the official UK parliament website both omit 'the' (the links are above). So I think it's correct to omit it (and wrong to include it). Random56653 ( talk) 13:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm American. It could be an WP:ENGVAR thing. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 13:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to point out (a) that this issue is addressed in footnote "a" of the article; and (b) that the bibliography and further reading sections include 28 publications that include "Magna Carta" without a definite article in their titles, and one (American, published 1898) that calls it "the Magna Charta" (plus one more that uses the term adjectivally: "The Magna Carta Manifesto"). Enough said. GrindtXX ( talk) 13:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Just double checked and footnote (a) cites (1) which is a 404 link to the OED.

The actual article on OED doesn't support footnote (a), it supports the removal of 'the'.

So footnote (a) appears to be wrong, and probably wants changing to cite the UK Parliament and/or the British Library and clarify the usage of 'the' and say that the correct usage is simply Magna Carta (no 'the', and no italics).

The correct OED link is:

[3] https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=Magna+Carta

Which in turn links to:

[4] https://www.oed.com/dictionary/magna-carta_n?tab=factsheet#38558944 Random56653 ( talk) 22:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick note to say that I'd previously changed one of the bibliography entries as it had an added 'the' when the book doesn't actually have 'the' in its title:

Danziger, Danny; 1215: The Year of Magna Carta Random56653 ( talk) 22:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the broken link appears to be because the OED has recently changed its interface. The Wikipedia "OED" template still links to the new interface, but fails to recognise the specific search term "Magna Carta, n." (which the old interface did), only recognising "Magna Carta". I shall therefore remove the "n.", which should fix that problem; but it's a bit of a pain, as this style (including the abbreviation for the part of speech) is used all over Wikipedia.

On the specific point at issue, I don't understand why you think our footnote (a) is at odds with the OED. The OED says "Usually without article" (and all the examples given in quotations omit the definite article); our footnote (a) says the term "may appear in English with or without the definite article "the", though it is more usual for the article to be omitted" – which means exactly the same thing, albeit spelled out at greater length. The point is also made by the citation in footnote (3), which says "Magna Carta does not take a definite article". GrindtXX ( talk) 13:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

My aim is to provide evidence for why this article ought to indicate that using 'the' isn't correct for Magna Carta (when referencing the document itself).

The full OED article is behind a paywall (that I've not got access to, and I presume that most people also haven't). However, the section that can be freely accessed doesn't use 'the'.

I've cited two references (UK Parliament, and the British Library) that should probably used instead, and the footnote(s) changed to reflect that 'the' isn't correct (and not just say that with and without can both be found).

I think I've put forward a strong case to have the article updated to make it clearer that 'the' shouldn't be used? Even to have it as part of the main text, and not just a footnote. I think it's an interesting point of information, and would cover a misconception.

Many wikipedia articles (incorrectly) use 'the' (and italics), and think that updating the main article to cover this would be useful? Random56653 ( talk) 22:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I do have access to the full OED entry, but apart from "Usually without article" (and, under Etymology, "The spelling with Ch- was common up to the end of the 19th cent."), it contains nothing further of relevance to this discussion.

The OED citation should certainly be kept (it's a pretty definitive source; and a high proportion of UK readers do have access via public library or other institutional subscriptions), but I'd have no objection to you moving this issue into the body of the article and making it a bit more prominent, and adding further references. However, I'd avoid being too prescriptive. It's certainly the case that the definite article is virtually never used in modern scholarly or "official" usage, but it's still fairly common in uninformed popular usage, and to that extent not entirely "wrong" – as the OED says, "usually without". Maybe someone would like to attempt an ngram (which would, however, have to filter out adjectival usages, such as "the Magna Carta barons").

I also agree with removing the definite article when it's used in articles elsewhere, and have sporadically made that correction myself in the past.

The same issue arises in relation to Domesday Book, where we say (in the body of the article) "The usual modern scholarly convention is to refer to the work as "Domesday Book" (or simply as "Domesday"), without a definite article. However, the form "the Domesday Book" is also found in both academic and non-academic contexts." – unfortunately with only one (rather inadequate) citation. GrindtXX ( talk) 12:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)