SkipCaptcha
6
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + +
Talk:Absolute monarchy (view source)
Revision as of 13:24, September 25, 2022
, 13:24, September 25, 2022Just a Note.
[[User:SKWills|SKWills]] ([[User talk:SKWills|talk]]) 01:16, June 24, 2022 (EDT)
[[User:SKWills|SKWills]] ([[User talk:SKWills|talk]]) 01:16, June 24, 2022 (EDT)
:Wasn't his rule so authoritarian that the [[Magna Carta]] was a rebellion against it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:23, June 24, 2022 (EDT)
:Wasn't his rule so authoritarian that the [[Magna Carta]] was a rebellion against it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 01:23, June 24, 2022 (EDT)
Actually, No. It is a Popular Historical Myth that King John was Forced to Sign The Magna Carta as an Absolute Monarch Who Abuseed His Power. It is also usually Depicted as an Event as King John Agreeing for the First Time in at least Cultural History to have Limited The Power of The King, and as a sort of Proto-American Constitution lifted by "The People". But, it was actually Issued by The Barons, and did not Extend to Them Greater Rights and Freedoms, but Merely Reasserted the Feudal Rights they Already Had that The King had Ignored. The Justification for The Revolt and Why The Pope Himself supported it rested on The King's Actions being Illegal, as he Overstepped his Authority. This is Quiet different from being an Absolute Monarch. Especially since if You Read His Biography, While King John did Overstep his Authority, He even then had Limits he did not transgress in what Proved to be a Futile Attempt to not Rile the Barons and Council (Precursor to Parliament) to much.
Also, sorry this took a bit to say but I did not Know You had Replied to Me.
[[User:SKWills|SKWills]] ([[User talk:SKWills|talk]]) 09:24, September 25, 2022 (EDT)