Once upon a time, there was a boy named John, who was King of England. Most of you will remember him best as Prince John, the bad guy of Robin Hood legends. His escapades against the bandits of Sherwood Forest would've been sufficient to earn his infamy in history, but John, ever willing to outdo himself, continued (like a certain modern national leader who shall remain nameless) to heap failure on failure until . . . well, let us first set the stage.
In The Adventures of Robin Hood, Prince John (played by Claude Rains) tries to get himself crowned king, and, in the ceremony, he is called "John Lackland." This nickname had been given to him by his father, Henry II, who, years earlier, had made his other sons (including Richard the Lionheart) dukes of French provinces, but intentionally left young John off the list. Undoubtedly, it wasn't a moniker he intended to earn, but earn it he did, when, as King, he went to war with France and lost – both the war and much of the French lands then part of the English realm.
John could've retired gracefully, but graceful doesn't seem to have been his nature. He imposed taxes on "the barons" (a general term for all English nobles) and appealed Pope Innocent III to win back the French lands he couldn't win on his own. His taxes, in the opinion of most English nobles, got totally out of hand, and the Pope's help was paid for with English sovereignty.
You heard correctly, history buffs, King John handed the throne of England to the Pope of Rome, swearing fealty (allegiance) as a vassal (servant) to the Roman Catholic Church. It was, in his mind, totally his right to do this or anything else with the throne, as he believed he ruled vis et voluntas (Latin, force and will) by divine majesty (God's will). In short, a king was above the law – any law except God's – and the Pope defined God's law.
Great plan, with two small flaws: (1) The barons bore no ill-will to the Pope, most were devout Catholics, but the Pope of Rome, as the title might suggest, was in Rome! John Lackland may have been the runt of the Plantagenet litter, but at least he was an English King. (2) His notions on taxes were absurd, but the barons were sure that he could refine the tax laws (and, undoubtedly, a few other laws) with the help of their collective wisdom.
Really noticeable unrest began in 1209, but the lid finally blew off the kettle in 1215, when a large force of barons moved against John. Many of them would've happily tossed him off the throne, but they didn't have a good successor handy, so they let their obnoxious little king keep his job by signing The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, known to history by its short title, being in Latin, Magna Carta. With a few amendments over the next couple of centuries, the Magna Carta remains part of English law to the present, almost 800 years later.
What, you might ask, is the moral of this story? Well, before we get to that, let's mention just a couple of other chapters in this saga:
In 1399, Henry Bolingbroke overthrew his cousin, Richard II, who was, according to Henry, a tyrant.
In 1642, Parliament rose up against a self-styled absolute monarch, Charles I, in what is now called the English Civil War; Charles lost the war and his head, and a commonwealth was established.
In 1688, Parliament rose up again. The Commonwealth didn't work out, so they called the monarchy back into session. Charles II was followed by another self-styled absolute monarch, James II – "that pimple James," as he was called by Errol Flynn in Captain Blood (an unspoken, but not uncommon, opinion). When it looked like a Catholic dynasty was to be established in the now Protestant England, Parliament called on James' daughter and son-in-law, Princess Mary and Prince William of Orange, who took the throne and agreed to an act of succession that included the English Bill of Rights.
By 1775, Mary's distant cousin twice removed, George III, prince of Hanover in Germany, was on the throne and being as obnoxious to His American realms as King John had been toward Robin Hood and his Merry Men. A new set of barons – in this case, elected leaders in place of hereditary nobles – rose up. But they had the courtesy to declare to His Majesty and world, the causes and necessities of their revolt:
In The Adventures of Robin Hood, Prince John (played by Claude Rains) tries to get himself crowned king, and, in the ceremony, he is called "John Lackland." This nickname had been given to him by his father, Henry II, who, years earlier, had made his other sons (including Richard the Lionheart) dukes of French provinces, but intentionally left young John off the list. Undoubtedly, it wasn't a moniker he intended to earn, but earn it he did, when, as King, he went to war with France and lost – both the war and much of the French lands then part of the English realm.
John could've retired gracefully, but graceful doesn't seem to have been his nature. He imposed taxes on "the barons" (a general term for all English nobles) and appealed Pope Innocent III to win back the French lands he couldn't win on his own. His taxes, in the opinion of most English nobles, got totally out of hand, and the Pope's help was paid for with English sovereignty.
You heard correctly, history buffs, King John handed the throne of England to the Pope of Rome, swearing fealty (allegiance) as a vassal (servant) to the Roman Catholic Church. It was, in his mind, totally his right to do this or anything else with the throne, as he believed he ruled vis et voluntas (Latin, force and will) by divine majesty (God's will). In short, a king was above the law – any law except God's – and the Pope defined God's law.
Great plan, with two small flaws: (1) The barons bore no ill-will to the Pope, most were devout Catholics, but the Pope of Rome, as the title might suggest, was in Rome! John Lackland may have been the runt of the Plantagenet litter, but at least he was an English King. (2) His notions on taxes were absurd, but the barons were sure that he could refine the tax laws (and, undoubtedly, a few other laws) with the help of their collective wisdom.
Really noticeable unrest began in 1209, but the lid finally blew off the kettle in 1215, when a large force of barons moved against John. Many of them would've happily tossed him off the throne, but they didn't have a good successor handy, so they let their obnoxious little king keep his job by signing The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, known to history by its short title, being in Latin, Magna Carta. With a few amendments over the next couple of centuries, the Magna Carta remains part of English law to the present, almost 800 years later.
What, you might ask, is the moral of this story? Well, before we get to that, let's mention just a couple of other chapters in this saga:
In 1399, Henry Bolingbroke overthrew his cousin, Richard II, who was, according to Henry, a tyrant.
In 1642, Parliament rose up against a self-styled absolute monarch, Charles I, in what is now called the English Civil War; Charles lost the war and his head, and a commonwealth was established.
In 1688, Parliament rose up again. The Commonwealth didn't work out, so they called the monarchy back into session. Charles II was followed by another self-styled absolute monarch, James II – "that pimple James," as he was called by Errol Flynn in Captain Blood (an unspoken, but not uncommon, opinion). When it looked like a Catholic dynasty was to be established in the now Protestant England, Parliament called on James' daughter and son-in-law, Princess Mary and Prince William of Orange, who took the throne and agreed to an act of succession that included the English Bill of Rights.
By 1775, Mary's distant cousin twice removed, George III, prince of Hanover in Germany, was on the throne and being as obnoxious to His American realms as King John had been toward Robin Hood and his Merry Men. A new set of barons – in this case, elected leaders in place of hereditary nobles – rose up. But they had the courtesy to declare to His Majesty and world, the causes and necessities of their revolt:
With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.
George took them at their word, not only by sending thousands of English troops, but by calling on a fellow German, the Count of Hess-Kassel, to send thousands of mercenaries, and crush this nascent fifth revolution and nip it in the proverbial bud. Like John, it just didn't work out the way he hoped. Following a series of small victories, the Colonials issued a scathing accusation justifying their actions on legal, but more importantly, moral and religious grounds:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
I have no direct evidence that the British Parliament was surprised at this Declaration, but I have the feeling that it was. I don't think they could believe the Colonials would be so bold.
But, in fact, these colonies were English colonies and these Colonials were Englishmen! Parliament should've been surprised if the Colonials had not risen up after so many years of dispute over their government. For over 500 years, Englishmen had repeatedly risen up against their king, when that king could no longer be among the trusted "Guards for their future security."
The lessons we taught at Lexington, Concord, Boston, Saratoga, Ticonderoga, Princeton and Yorktown were learned in the classrooms of Runnymede, Flint Castle, Preston and the Boyne:
But, in fact, these colonies were English colonies and these Colonials were Englishmen! Parliament should've been surprised if the Colonials had not risen up after so many years of dispute over their government. For over 500 years, Englishmen had repeatedly risen up against their king, when that king could no longer be among the trusted "Guards for their future security."
The lessons we taught at Lexington, Concord, Boston, Saratoga, Ticonderoga, Princeton and Yorktown were learned in the classrooms of Runnymede, Flint Castle, Preston and the Boyne:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
It was one of the "ancient rights of Englishmen" that bound Norman, Saxon, Angle, Dane, Roman, Pict and Celt together as Englishmen.
It is our right as well, the right of the Germans, Africans, Hispanics, Scandinavians, Polynesians, Asians (and their children) who joined the British as Americans. In too many ways to mention, no less than in 1776, the "Object [of our current administration] evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism."
Today we must rise up again and alter our government – not the form, just the people running it. Not by gun and cannon; we have better weapons – the truth, the United States Constitution and the vote.
With these, we can change the course of history. It has been said, "Freedom consists of nothing more than a willingness to take one more bullet than a tyrant is willing or able to fire."
I say, so be it! Take your best shot. We, the People, are ready for you.
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.
It is our right as well, the right of the Germans, Africans, Hispanics, Scandinavians, Polynesians, Asians (and their children) who joined the British as Americans. In too many ways to mention, no less than in 1776, the "Object [of our current administration] evinces a design to reduce [us] under absolute Despotism."
Today we must rise up again and alter our government – not the form, just the people running it. Not by gun and cannon; we have better weapons – the truth, the United States Constitution and the vote.
With these, we can change the course of history. It has been said, "Freedom consists of nothing more than a willingness to take one more bullet than a tyrant is willing or able to fire."
I say, so be it! Take your best shot. We, the People, are ready for you.
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment