If the author's rejection of modern interpretations of the significance of Magna Carta is right, then we need to ask why students should learn about it at all. The only reason to force young people to study history is for its contribution to their understanding the present and future. This author fails to show what that means in the case of the Magna Carta.

This from Our Corrupt Legal System. I make the usual mistake of saying King John signed.

4. Magna Carta: a tax evasion scheme

Magna Carta is invoked to support all manner of legal claims, but it was essentially an attempt by the magnates to evade tax and dilute the power of the king. Arthur Marriott QC, of London, said in Breaking the Deadlock a lecture on international arbitration in Sydney in October 2005: ‘Magna Carta was of course a charter for the feudal aristocracy.’
Scutage was a tax in lieu of military service. When King (1199-1216) John insisted that magnates pay scutage when they refused service in France, the great men gathered outside London in June 1215, and demanded at sword-point that the king sign a charter. Some sections with comments:
Section 21: ‘Earls and barons shall not be amerced [fined] except through their peers.’ Peers were unlikely to order other peers to pay scutage.
Section 39: ‘No freeman shall be … imprisoned … except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land’. Freemen owned freehold land and were one level below the magnates. They were unlikely to imprison their peers.
Section 40: ‘To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice’. That tends to confirm that a bribe would buy justice, and a job as a judge.
To gain time, John signed the charter and then, as a vassal of Innocent, appealed to Rome. The Pope annulled the charter in August 1215 on the ground that John had signed under duress and without the Pontiff’s consent. The charter was thus in force for nine weeks

Thank you David for one of the most thoughtful and significant contributions I have read on OLO. You have used the Magna Carta to illustrate your points, but the same forensic analysis could be applied to a host of other areas, not just history, but also particularly in science. There is something profoundly wrong with the education system that it produces so many people ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. Evolution is but one illustration, and the recent extended comment section in OLO on climate change is another.

Your critique of the teaching of a seminal moment in our history (1215) could also be applied to more recent events. A discussion of how great events of the 20th century are continually misrepresented in books, newspapers, tv and radio would constitute a major article in its own right. As to why this might be, a useful insight is gained from Herman and Chomsky's 1988 study "Manufacturing Consent". The role of the modern media is essentially as a propaganda tool for the governing elites. To a degree schools perform a similar function.

To present an accurate analysis of history poses a challenge to the status quo. The brief history of the present government shows how little tolerance there is for forensic analysis, or even the dissemination of information that runs counter to its preferred version of events. The supine response of our major media reinforces the dangerous trends in play.

I hope that your article is widely read and some lessons learned from it.

David,

while accuracy is of course desirable, too much detail will lose a Year 8 classroom very quickly. History in the middle years is necessarily an overview and, if the kids are interested in a specific topic, a guide for their own reading or further research.

There is a lot of competition for attention in the classroom, and attention is a limited commodity, relative to what adults might expect.

“The Charter was not, ... a charter of human rights or a .... It was an agreement between the King and his nobles about how certain medieval grievances would be handled.”

C’mon David, as imperfect as it was, it was still technically a charter of human rights for free men as well as Barons.

ARTICLE 1: …the Church shall be free, its rights undiminished,

ARTICLE 7: A widow, on the death of her husband, shall immediately have her marriage portion and inheritance.

8: No widow shall be compelled to marry so long as she wishes to live without a husband,

9: Our bailiffs shall [not] seize any land for payment of debt so long as the debtor's chattels are sufficient to discharge the same …

20: For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence...

21: Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, ...

27: If any free man shall die intestate, his chattels are to be distributed by his nearest kinfolk and friends,

28: No constable or bailiffs shall take corn or other provisions from any man without immediate payment...

30: No sheriff or other of Our bailiffs, shall take the horses or carts of any free man for transport without consent.

31: Neither We nor Our bailiffs will take another man's wood for Our castles without the owner's consent.

38: In the future no bailiff shall upon his own unsupported accusation place any man upon trial

39: No free man shall be imprisoned, outlawed, or banished, except by lawful judgment of his equals

40: To no one will We sell to no one We deny or delay, right or justice.

41: All merchants shall have safe conduct to go and come out of and into England,

42: In the future it shall be lawful for anyone to leave and return to Our kingdom safely and securely by land and water,


54: No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon a woman's appeal for the death of any other person than her husband.

ITS UNUSUAL..TO SEE THE comments adding SO MUCH
to what is a good article..wow 799 years old

AS I RECALL..THE RIGHT..TO OWN ARMS..RELATES TO LAWS PATENT
ie the right to hold A COAT OF arms [status/OFFICE.PERMISSIONS LICENSE/WARRENTO[right]..warrant/seal/sign/entente]..IE THE PATENT LAWS REST on the laws of heraldry shivery honor.

anyhow in practice THE COURTS IGNORE IT.
BUT ITSV CERTSAINLY WORTH READING and mention

noting in qld..[where the loWER HOUSE simply voted itself from the constitution]..sans the required REFERENDUM..[I THIN AS AN INCLUSION OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT [70?].OF 2002..[WHERE a lawyer decided to rewrite the CON..INTO AN ACT]..THE AGNA CATA IS THROWN IN[IN LATIN]..FOR DECORATION.

I HOLD THE HERALDIC HONOUR for the head of the deer
as well as the golden horn..both exist on the state shield
yet as freeborm freeman..the court has aziezed my house..for 3000 dollars unpaid court debt[statute]..sans judgment of peers..as well as suspended license rego..and banka ccounts

FOR WHAT..might is riGHT..
THERE ARE TWO LAWFUL Reasons to seek court remedy
personal injury[criminal]..or civil..[contract]..que warrento?

its all just smoke and mirrors

i got higher perMISSIONS..OF GOD..
but need reminding ..this is satans realm..[look behind the curtain]

I must second Mr. O'Neill's comment: "Thank you David for one of the most thoughtful and significant contributions I have read on OLO." I particulary liked the way Prof. Clark pointed out the pedagogical deficiencies in Australia's eduction systems. Surveys several years ago found that only about half of all Australians knew the country had a written constitution (compared to almost all Americans). Australians, school children especially, need to develop a greater knowledge about "where their major institutions came from, [and] how they emerged."

My only complaint is that the link embedded in "A version of this article with footnotes is available by clicking here" at the bottom of the article doesn't seem to work.

Most enlightening article, thank you muchly for same.

Apart from the technical failure of the textbook authorities, the main achievement of Magna Carta was to wrest some of the despotic power away from the whims of the crown and historically John was a particularly bad occupier of the throne.

Lastly, despite how you have dressed it up, our eventual parliamentary system is not democracy (i.e. for the people, by the people doesn't equal parliamentary democracy) we the plebs still battle the barons for what they are prepared to cast down to us.

ITS HARD TO KNOW..the truth..but lets give
the 6 may...the maggi straight a clue.

i come to hrh couRTS..TO RETURN TO HER CONTROL/HER CROWN
[crown=govt/public services [all the common wealths courts forces etc

all sworn to serve and protect..her and her heirs aND SUCCESORS
one united commonweaLTH..UNDER ONE SAME common law..

i come..to offer hrh..the peace..in that the popes 1 and 2 do come and pass on the DUTY OF PETER..TO EDWARD..THAT IN DUE TIME HRH..PASS ON INTACTIO..And unite the two

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808

6 th of may..i shaLL BE IN SPIRIT
TALKING TO A MAGGI STRAIGHT..GIVING TESTIMANT..THATR UNDER HERALDIC LAW..HE OR SHE is obligated to present..to hrh..in person

this shoulld result in just laqw/just money.hust governance/under the unity of christo/and her who reigns her common wealths forces to serve and protect

HER COIN..SHALL RESTORE THE COMMON WEALTH
EACH FIEFDOM/HAS ITS OWN COIN..IT WILL BE THE CROWN SERVING THE LIVING
[NOT DEAD CORPERATIONS SUKKING us dry]..it happens that the date falls after the nimbin mardigrass[1 ST WEEK END..IN MAY[I HAVE BEEN asked to do a recycling talk/by michael[he look like god..and is the nicest blokE ever..

IM NOT SURE HOW I GO OR NOT
but not going isnt an optION
[THE POSTER FOR IT IS HORRId/just/blood shot eye balls..HUNDRED OF THE BEGGERS..but that beats the one illuminated eye..that dont officialy/bind heaven..and tHE COMMON WEALTH[HER EARTH
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995&page=0

I just love history. Most of it is just so wrong. What get's told is usually by the victors. Why something happened never get's mentioned.
Things like "Terra Nullius" Unfortunately that just didn't apply to Australia. It applied, as far as Europeans were concerned, to all of S.E Asia & Asia itself. The inhabitants of these lands were considered only to be animals. The siege of Lucknow & the Black hole of Calcutta were always tup to us as the terrible way the Chinese & Indians behaved to the British. Never mentioning the terrible British behaviour that caused these incidents. Don't get me started on what the Dutch & French did in Indonesia & Vietnam. Our Australian Aboriginal should think themselves they only had to deal with the British. not the Germans, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch & Belgians.

When I toured Europe I picked up lots of books from small towns which give a completely different light on what really happened through History in their areas & why. All I can say is that "School" got it so wrong.

Even Gallipoli could have been won on the first day if a couple of British Generals hadn't been so up themselves. (Hammersley, Stopford & Sitwell) Even what we were told about good General Custer is wrong.

Then, when looking at todays world. Let's look at the History of, say the last 10 years. Have three Professors write a separate accurate accounts. One Right & one Left leaning & a Green. How do you think that History would be portrayed by each. History is a dilemma that for sure.

I'll get to the Magna Charta later, it certainly wasn't kind to the Jews or Peasants.