SO FAR PARLIAMENT HAS SURVIVED ALLCOMERS ...AND MORE THAN LIKELY SURVIVE INTO THE FUTURE ...
IT IS THE ONLY WAY THE MILITARY CAN BE PAYED IN ORDER TO HAVE ORDER AND ALL THOSE WHO SEEK TO GO OUT SIDE ITS ABILITY TO PAY THE MILITARY HAVE FAILED AND EVEN IF IT IS CHALENGED AGAIN IT MORE THAN LIKELY WILL CONTINUE TO PAY THE MILITARY AND THOSE WHO GO OUT SIDE IT WILL PROBABLY FAIL YET AGAIN ...BECAUSE THE ECONOMY IS THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE WAY OF THE FUTURE WE CAN BELIEVE AND THE ESSENCE OF THE ECONOMY IS EQUALITY SO ANY ONE WHO DISCRIMINATES WILLL PROBABLY GO BROKE AND PARLIAMENT WILL JUST REVIVE UP TO WHERE IT LEFT OFF AND GO UNTIL ANOTHER HIC UP IN ITS ADMINISTRATION .. THE QUEEN CAN HAVE HER PLEASURE MEANING IF ANY ONE IS DESTABLIZING WHAT EVER HER PLEASURE IS THEY CAN BE TERMINATED SO PARLIAMENT AND THE IMPERIAL MONARCHY ARE HERE TO STAY NO MATTER WHAT RELIGEOUS CONVICTIONS A POLITICAL PARTY OR MONARCHY HAS ... THE POPE WILL NEVER EVER GAIN ENOUGH ECONOMIC WEALTH TO EVER RULE THE WORLD AGAIN NO MATTER WHO BELIEVES HIM AS WE SAW OVER HISTORY HE IS PAYING THE PRICE OF BEING BROKE SO HE CAN NEVER ACCUMILATE ENOUGH WEALTH TO PAY THE MILITARY WAGES AS HE DID IN MICHAEL ANGELOS TIME THIS IS OVER AND THE PRODESTANT MONARCHY WITH PARLIAMENT AND THE BELIEF OF EQUALITY IS THE ONLY WAY AN ECONOMY CAN GATHER TO PAY THE MILITARY .. IF A POLITICIAN OR QUEEN OR KING BELIEVES IN HIM THE POPE THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE BANKED IN HIS COURT EVER AGAIN AND HISTORY HAS SHOWN IT NEVER GOES BACKWARDS .. SKEATESY
11/21/2013 3:38:20 AM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the charter issued on 15 June 1215, and later modified. For other uses, see Magna Carta (disambiguation).
"Great Charter" redirects here. For the Irish law, see Great Charter of Ireland.
One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, property of the British Library
One of only four surviving exemplifications of the 1215 text, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106, property of the British Library
Location Various copies
Author(s) Barons of King John of England
Part of the Politics series on
Heraldic royal crown
Foundation of the Ottoman Empire
First French Empire
Second French Empire
5 October 1910 Revolution
Siamese revolution of 1932
Spanish Civil War
Birth of the Italian Republic
Nepalese Civil War
Magna Carta (Latin for Great Charter), also called Magna Carta Libertatum or The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, is an Angevin charter originally issued in Latin in the year 1215.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their rights.
The charter was an important part of the protracted historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world. Magna Carta was important in the colonization of America as England's legal system was used as a model for many of the colonies as they were developing their own legal systems.
The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary?for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
It was translated into vernacular French as early as 1219, and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions. The later versions excluded the most direct challenges to the monarch's authority that had been present in the 1215 charter. The charter first passed into law in 1225; the 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) "The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest," still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as "the greatest constitutional document of all times ? the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot". In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as the "first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status", the others being the Habeas Corpus Act (1679), the Petition of Right (1628), the Bill of Rights (1689), and the Act of Settlement (1701).
It was Magna Carta, over other early concessions by the monarch, which survived to become a "sacred text". In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not generally limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.
11/21/2013 3:22:47 AM
Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in 1526
The power of Tudor monarchs, including Henry, was 'whole' and 'entire', ruling, as they claimed, by the grace of God alone. The crown could also rely on the exclusive use of those functions that constituted the royal prerogative. These included acts of diplomacy (including royal marriages), declarations of war, management of the coinage, the issue of royal pardons and the power to summon and dissolve parliament as and when required. Nevertheless, as evident during Henry's break with Rome, the monarch worked within established limits, whether legal or financial, that forced him to work closely with both the nobility and parliament (representing the gentry). In practice, Tudor monarchs used patronage to maintain a royal court that included formal institutions such as the Privy Council as well more informal advisers and confidants. Both the rise and fall of court nobles could be swift: although the often-quoted figure of 72,000 executions during his reign is inflated, Henry did undoubtedly execute at will, burning or beheading two of his wives, twenty peers, four leading public servants, six close attendants and friends, one cardinal (John Fisher) and numerous abbots. Among those who were in favour at any given point in Henry's reign, one could usually be identified as a chief minister, though one of the enduring debates in the historiography of the period has been the extent to which those chief ministers controlled Henry rather than vice versa. In particular, historian G. R. Elton has argued that one such minister, Thomas Cromwell, led a "Tudor revolution in government" quite independently from the king, whom Elton presented as an opportunistic, essentially lazy participant in the nitty-gritty of politics who relied on others both for ideas and to do most of the work. Where Henry did intervene personally in the running of the country, Elton argued, he mostly did so to its detriment. The prominence and influence of faction in Henry's court is similarly discussed in the context of at least five episodes of Henry's reign, including the downfall of Anne Boleyn.
From 1514 to 1529, however, it was Thomas Wolsey (1473?1530), a cardinal of the established Church, who oversaw domestic and foreign policy for the young king from his position as Lord Chancellor. Wolsey centralised the national government and extended the jurisdiction of the conciliar courts, particularly the Star Chamber. The Star Chamber's overall structure remained unchanged, but Wolsey used it to provide for much-needed reform of the criminal law. The power of the court itself did not outlive Wolsey, however, since no serious administrative reform was undertaken and its role eventually devolved to the localities. Wolsey helped fill the gap left by Henry's declining participation in government (particularly in comparison to his father) but did so mostly by imposing himself in the King's place. His use of these courts to pursue personal grievances, and particularly to treat delinquents as if mere examples of a whole class worthy of punishment, angered the rich, who were annoyed as well by his enormous wealth and ostentatious living. Wolsey had greatly disappointed the king when he failed to secure a divorce from Queen Catherine. The treasury was empty after years of extravagance; the peers and people were dissatisfied and Henry needed an entirely new approach; Wolsey had to be replaced. After 16 years at the top, he lost power in 1529 and in 1530 was arrested on false charges of treason and died in custody. Wolsey's fall was a warning to the Pope and to the clergy of England of what might be expected for failure to comply with the king's wishes. Henry then took full control of his government, although at court numerous complex factions continued to try to ruin and destroy each other.
Thomas Cromwell in 1532 or 1533
Thomas Cromwell (c. 1485?1540) also came to define Henry's government. Returning to England from the continent in 1514 or 1515, he soon entered Wolsey's service. He turned to law, also picking up a good knowledge of the Bible, and was admitted to Gray's Inn in 1524. He became Wolsey's "man of all work". Cromwell, driven in part by his religious beliefs, attempted to reform the body politic of the English government through discussion and consent, and through the vehicle of continuity and not outward change. He was seen by many people as the man they wanted to bring about their shared aims, including Thomas Audley. By 1531, Cromwell and those associated with him were already responsible for the drafting of much legislation. Cromwell's first office was that of the master of the King's jewels in 1532, from which Cromwell began invigorate the government finances. By this point, Cromwell's power as an efficient administrator in a Council full of politicians, exceeded that Wolsey had achieved. Cromwell did much work through his many offices to remove the tasks of government from the Royal Household (and ideologically from the personal body of the King) and into a public state. He did so, however, in a haphazard fashion that left several remnants, because he needed to retain Henry's support, his own power, and the possibility of actually achieving the plan he set out. Cromwell made the various income streams put in place by Henry VII more formal and assigned largely autonomous bodies for their administration. The role of the King's Council was transferred to a reformed Privy Council, much smaller and more efficient than its predecessor. A difference emerged between the financial health of the king, and that of the country, although Cromwell's fall undermined much of his bureaucracy, which required his hand to keep order among the many new bodies and prevent profligate spending which strained relations as well as finances. Cromwell's reforms ground to a halt in 1539, the initiative lost, and he failed to secure the passage of an enabling act, the Proclamation by the Crown Act 1539. Cromwell's association with the Cleves marriage, whilst not fatal in itself, weakened Cromwell as an anti-Cromwell faction was on the rise. Henry then pursued the hand of Catherine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk's niece, and it was Norfolk who eventually brought Cromwell down. He was executed on 28 July 1540.
11/21/2013 3:18:19 AM
The Church 1553 to 1558
The religious turmoil that England and Wales had experienced since the late 1520?s continued after the death of Edward VI. By Edward?s death, England had a Church of England that was very recognisable as being Protestant. Whether Luther inspired it or Calvin was a separate issue but all vestiges of Catholicism has been removed. Edward has been educated as a Protestant so there would have been no surprise at the direction that the Church would take while he was king. There was also no confusion as to the direction the Church would take with Mary I. Mary had been educated as a Roman Catholic and she would have been very aware that the issue of religion started with Henry VIII?s attempt to divorce Mary?s mother, Catherine of Aragon. When Mary became queen in 1553, few doubted that she would return the Church to both Rome and Catholicism. How the people would react to yet more change would be an unknown quantity.
After the failure of Northumberland?s plot to put Lady Jane Grey on to the throne, it quickly became apparent to Mary that she had a powerful weapon on her side ? that the people were instinctively loyal to the legal ruling monarch and that they greatly valued a legal succession. This, along with her own beliefs, quickly persuaded Mary that she would have few problems undoing the reforms of her half-brother.
When Mary was crowned there is little doubt that she was very popular with the people. However, she interpreted this as support for her desire for wholesale religious reform. In this she was wrong. The senior nobility was divided over many religious issues but over one it was united ? royal supremacy. The break from Rome and the establishment of monarchical power as being supreme in England was an accepted way of life. Mary?s plan to restore Papal authority in England was bound to be highly controversial ? even Pope Julius III urged her to be cautious. He believed that any rash move by Mary might cause a rebellion that would oust her from the throne. Stephen Gardner, her most trusted advisor, was also wary about restoring the authority of the Pope in England. Cardinal Reginald Pole, Papal Legate for England, stayed in the Netherlands for a year before coming to England ? presumably to see if he was safe to return.
However, the public reaction to the first of Mary?s religious reforms encouraged her to do more. Mary used the royal prerogative to suspend the second Act of Uniformity and reintroduce the mass. There was little public outcry and this must have heartened Mary. Eight hundred Protestants left the country for Protestant Europe ? but this was all.
In October 1553, Parliament met. There was a discussion ? described as lively but not angry ? about potential religious changes and at the end of it the first steps were taken to remove Protestantism from the Church of England in the first Statute of Repeal. This act removed all the religious legislation that had been introduced in the reign of Edward VI and the Church was restored to what it had been in 1547 under the Act of the Six Articles. Combined with this was the arrest of Cranmer, Hooper, Ridley and other leading bishops ? none of whom, after their arrest, could speak in the House of Lords. At this stage, Mary was cautious. Listening to her advisors, she did not touch on the issue of royal supremacy nor did she discuss what for some was a more vexed issue ? the sale of Church land to members of the laity, which by the very nature of what had previously happened, meant the more wealthy, and therefore influential, members of the nobility and gentry.
The changes to the Church continued in 1554. Gardner wanted to act quickly. He had removed from their sees, Protestant bishops appointed in the reign of Edward. Catholic bishops replaced them. The Archbishop of York was also deprived of his see. In March 1554, all bishops were ordered to adhere only to legislation passed in the reign of Henry VIII, with 15547 being used as a benchmark. Latin once again became the language of the Church and clerical marriage was outlawed. Clergy who had got married were ordered to leave their families or lose their posts and face a fine. Many complied with the ruling though a few did not and fled abroad.
Cardinal Reginald Pole arrived in England in November 1554. His arrival was significant. Pole had remained in the safety of Catholic Europe while the initial reforms occurred. It is assumed that he must have felt that the time was right ? and safe ? for his return as Papal Legate. In the same month, Parliament passed the second Statute of Repeal. This did away with royal supremacy and restored Papal authority once again. It also removed from the statute books all the religious reforms that Parliament had passed between 1529 and 1547. However, Mary was capable of compromise. Those who had purchased Church land after 1536 were protected. This was a simple recognition by Mary that an attempt to do the opposite would provoke a negative reaction against her by some of the most important men in the land. Therefore, Mary?s desire for a restoration of the monasteries never came about. She did return to the monasteries former monastic land held by the Crown (worth ?60,000 a year) but this was a very small proportion of the original amount of land held by the monasteries.
Parliament also restored the old heresy laws. This resulted in leading Protestants being tried for heresy, being found guilty and executed. The first burning at the stake took place on February 4th 1555. On February 9th, John Hooper, former Bishop of Gloucester, was burned in Gloucester. By March 1556, Ridley, Latimer and Cranmer had all been burned at the stake. Eventually 274 Protestants were executed in the reign on ?Bloody? Mary.
Ironically it was the death in November 1555 of Stephen Gardner, a devout Catholic that led to a repressive campaign being started against Protestants in England. Even though Gardner was a devout Catholic, he urged caution and restraint when it came to dealing with Protestants. Gardner was a well-known Catholic during the reign of Edward VI, but he was never faced death for his beliefs. While Gardner had supported the execution of the first few Protestants (in the belief that it would frighten off other Protestants) he did not believe in a wholesale campaign against them. He was astute enough to realise that the campaign against the Protestants would be enough to rally them together as a far more cohesive force.
Gardner?s death led to Pole becoming far more influential on Mary?s decision making. Pole had been made Archbishop of Canterbury in December 1555 and he persuaded Mary that it was their sacred duty to rid England and Wales of heretics. Historians claim that the number of people in England executed for heresy between 1555 and 1558 was greater than in any other European Catholic state. However, it has also been noted that the total of 274 is fewer than at other times in English history.
Many in England did not support the execution of men who were thought of as learned and not a threat to social stability. An obvious comparison was made with the England of Edward VI when Catholics may have been removed from religious office, but were not persecuted for their beliefs. This, along with her very unpopular marriage to Phillip II, led to the rapid decline in Mary?s popularity. A lot of southeast England and East Anglia was flooded with Protestant literature ? brought in from Protestant Europe ? and in 1558 the Privy Council passed a law that anyone caught with such material would be executed. The more Mary and her government were seen to be, the more unpopular she became.
Pole did what he could to restore Catholicism to its former authority but he failed. Ironically, it was something to do with Pole himself that assisted this. In 1555, Pope Julius III had died. Paul IV succeeded him. The new pope had a long-standing dislike of Pole. He removed his title of Papal Legate and ordered that he return to Rome. Pole refused and remained in England as Archbishop of Canterbury. The significance of this was that it showed the impact of attempted Papal interference in English affairs. While many may have been Catholic in England, few supported the return of Papal authority. In fact many interpreted ?Papal intervention? as Papal interference in English affairs.
How successful were Mary?s reforms? How Catholic was England by the time of her death?
Both of these questions are difficult to answer. The speed with which England returned to Protestantism under Elizabeth I would indicate that though legislation was on paper, their impact in the community was not great. Research at a local level also shows that the authorities introduced Mary?s reforms at a local level. However, it can be argued that they had to. Failure to do so would have led to any local government leader being punished. However, what was on paper does not show what the local people thought. It is difficult, if not impossible, to know what the people of England believed about these reforms. Few could write and while Mary was alive and the repression in existence, few would have been brave to have written down their thoughts if they were anti-Catholic.
Bill of Rights
Mary Queen of Scots
Catherine of Aragon
Lady Jane Grey
Mary Queen of Scots
Women in Tudor England
Ask.com and get
History Learning Site >
Tudor England >
The Church 1553 to 1558
Find lyrics free
Online College and University Degree Guide
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605
The 95 Theses - a modern translation
November 11th 1918
Sergeant Stubby (1916 or 1917- March 16th 1926)
Powered by AddThis
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google_follow
If you have any enquiries or notice any problems please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org