I can see how a housewife in Colorado might easily be mistaken by you for a reliable authority on the Latinate charters of thirteenth century England.
So I am actually going to quote from real books written by people who knew something. Since I know you can't read very well I am going to type slowly.
Magna Carta and Its Influence in the World Today by Sir Ivor Jennings (Downing Prof of the Laws of England, Cambridge Univ.) (Brit. Information Services, 1965) pages 9-10:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jennings
On the other hand, the document which was originally called Magna Carta was not King John's Charter of 1215 but King Henry's Charter of 1225. King John sought to repudiate his Charter almost as soon as it was sealed, and he appealed to the Pope, Innocent III, who on 24 August 1215 issued a bull annulling the Charter. It is unnecessary to ask whether this action had any legal validity, for King John died a year later and the barons who had the infant king, Henry III, in their custody, decided to issue a revised version of the Charter of 1215 in the name of the new king.
|
Magna Carta and the Tradition of Liberty by Louis B. Wright (U.S. Capitol Historical Society & the Supreme Court Historical Society, 1976) page 35:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wright
Some authorities believe that [Stephen] Langton had a major part in the drafting the Charter. Evidence for this belief may be the anger displayed by Pople Innocent III over sections of Magna Carta that curtailed the power of his recently acquired vassal, King John. In his rage, the pope on August 24 [1215] declared the Charter null and void adn pronounced excommunication upon anyone who observed or tried to enforce its provisions. Furthermore, he ordered Archbishop Langton to Rome - exiled from the see of Canterbury. But both Innocent III and King John had only a short time more to live, and their own actions were soon null and void.
|
Magna Carta by J.c. Holt (Prof. of History, Univ. of Reading, UK) (Cambridge Univ. Press 1965) pages 262-266:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Holt
It must have been at Oxford in July [1215], at the very latest, that he [K. John] sent to Pope Innocent III asking for the papal annulment of the Charter. From this point onwards, therefore, he was trying to talk the barons into a trap, to lull their suspicions of his intentions and delay their own preparations for the approaching conflict. ...
United the end of August [1215] Innocent was acting in complete ignorance of what had happened at Runnymede, Hence his interventions were quite out of date and out of touch. The first came in a letter of 18 June written after Innocent had heard of the baronial declaration of war. This was apparently addressed to the archbishop and bishops, who were ordered to excommunicate the barons and lay an interdict on their lands unless they accepted the papal forma of 19 March within eight days of the receipt of the letter. ....
... [A] change in attitude which had begun, but had been hidden, when the king asked for the annulment of the Charter in July, and was completed with the arrival of the bull of annulment about the end of September. This condemned the Charter as an agreement exacted by force, which was shameful, demeaning, illegal, unjust and derogatory to the king's rights and dignity. ...
John had won the war of nerves and propaganda.
|
I suppose I could keep looking up in my reference books, but I expect that once you're back where you belong the prison library will have some books on legal history, although few of them will be written by rural housewives.