Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:27:08 -0600
Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
Subject: Re: Jobs Lost to India Aftermath
All this talk by Kamal about currency & etc---it isnt that hard.
So long are there are people living in squalor on this planet, the
outsourcing of labor will be a problem. After India industrializes to
the point that it's standard of living is substantially improved,
labor will be outsourced somewhere else.
This sounds like a reasonable extrapolation but the following situations
may also be possible:
1. Continued job loss from the US (our loss in average standard of living
for most people, gains for the few rich) and net influx of money to 3rd
world. End result for the US: become 3rd world.
2. Revolution some decades from now? (aka Russia, ~1917)
3. Borgification of human life (implants, massive intel on citizens [eg.
ChoicePoint]) viz. future like in the Terminator movies (machines out
mowing down people) and others. See footnote 1.
4. Intellectual enlightenment, pursuit of fairness in society. See
5. Some combination of some of above.
We will only know that this problem is starting to come back into
equilibriuam when we hear about labor being outsourced to sub-Saharan
Africa. My guess is that that will be the last bastion of
low-standard-of-living left behind as the rest of the world
Cheap flesh (if it is educated, skilled, and compliant) may win out if
manchines (automation and nanotech) can't do the work. Nanotech? See
Low standard of living may be everywhere. Another article in WSJ reported
on a study that employment even in India and China is down. Why? All
factories are becoming more _efficient_. Good for the bottom line. Bad if
you have a society where you _have to_ have money to buy your support
(food, housing) but the managers won't hire enough for money to be widely
Now, how LONG will it take to get to that point? Hard to tell.
The clear thing is that we--in the US--WILL see our standard of living
decline, and very substantially, either slowly or all at once. All
the forces are pointing in that direction, and I don't see anything
that can clearly be done to stop that. Arguably it has been happening
here since about the early 70s anyhow.
I think this is approximately correct. A _few_ 9/11s and our stock market
will tank, then depression. Other things could bring on a sudden,
unpredictable bad result. Continued slow job loss...will be paralleled
with a slow decline in standard of living. Lots of voices out there on
The question is--what will be our response to this? People get very
angry when their expectations are dashed. And remember, people think
in an extrapolatory mode. They look at how much better they did than
their parents and expect the same slope.
Again, arguably, some of the bad stuff to come from this inevitable
downward pressure on our standard of living has already happened--e.g.
we are invading countries pre-emptively now.
What's next? Iran, Korea?
I don't know what the answer is.
I don't either, but I think about historical models. The women's movement
has attracted some attention and some reform. The civil rights movement
did, too. There are many grass-roots special interest movements that are
altruistic in nature but are too narrow. Governance is our main problem
(the politicos respond mostly to lobbying from special interests that are
focused on making money for a few people but not in the best interests of
the average citizen). One nice model I like to think about is the Magna
Carta model (in year 1215 the underlings made the king sign a 'great
charter' in which the king had to agree that he had to obey the laws, too
[however, see footnote 2, below]).
Footnote 1: I just saw recently a big newspaper article on the
robotification of our military. Scifi? Remember the robot car races from
what, 1-2 years ago? They all crashed. One day, they may not. But, why is
this a big deal? Burried in the newspaper article was the fact that our
military needs $650 billion (thats "b" as in big ones), right now, to pay
for retirement/pensions for existing servicemen. THAT is what is driving
robotification!!! Not high tech warm-fuzzy "saving lives" or
fancy-schmantzy. Save money in the budget. Next naval ships will be missle
barges. Crew of 20. Radar, computers, and lots of cruise missles.
"Predator" aircrafts are already here.
Footnote 2: Wishing to start from some common and established history of
the Magna Carta, I sellected a website (URL below) from Google and most of
the text under that subject. I made a few comments but otherwise changed
nothing, not even spelling, punctuations, etc., except formating to fit
this page. Someday I will read more about the Magna Carta (I hope).
The Magna Carta
If we take a more objective view of popular history we might
achieve a very different picture of the reason for the signing of
the Magna Carta.
For instance, who, could answer the following:
Which Prince of France, invaded Britain with his great army,
and was crowned King of England in London?
No, not Duke William of Normandy. Nor is it a trick question.
It happened, and he was King for almost a year and isn't even
mentioned in the Roll Call of English kings.
While you ponder that, here's another example of slanted
history. Let's take a look at, some say, the fiendish Prince John,
the lovely Maid Marion, the equally beautiful Robin Hood, and, not
forgetting, of course, the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham (boo, hiss, etc)
and the dawn of enlightenment and freedom represented by the Magna Carta.
Never was a buckler more swashed in days of yore.
The Magna Carta is a fact, it really does exist, several of them.
One now rests in the archives of Lincoln Cathedral, and in Salisbury, and
other places. The history of the evolution of the Magna Carta in
Anglo\Norman England has been shrouded by romance but it is often
referred with sufficient vagueness as a sort of " statement of human
rights", "freedom", "liberties" and "equality" document, or a
constitutional forerunner, representative of the freedom from oppression
of the 'the common people'. The U.S constitution may be termed to
have been created by a revolution from oppression and in some ways
modelled after the Magna Carta. But the ancient Magna Carta may
have been a conspiracy to conquer from within, promoted from
outside the country.
Let's take a quick realistic peek at the way things may have
been in a world less tinctured with rose colored glasses.
Many sites on the Web will give you the admirable content
of the Magna Carta. Click on to Alta Vista at "Magna Carta" when
you have time. Lot's of time. But read this first.
Now the reality. History did not treat King John well.
Whichever way we relate to it now, the Magna Carta was born of a
complex revolution, probably resulting from a well planned and
massive French/Scottish invasion of England, which had many
different interests at its essence, religious power, royal
prerogatives, national and international greed, upper class avarice,
avoidance of tax and obligations, and many other vicissitudes of
powerful men. The needs of the common folk, mostly the still landless
Anglo\Saxon, were way down the list, may never have appeared,
even in fine print. And anyway, the persecution of the 'common folk'
or peasantry was more on the backs of the rebellious Norman
Barons who were their liege lords, rather than personally by
King John, or John Lackland, as he was known.
The episode started with Richard the Lion Heart (he couldn't
have been known as Richard 1st because nobody knew whether
there'd be another Richard). Richard sold the three northern
counties of England to the King of Scotland for 10,000 crowns and
took off to the Crusades, a good investment at the time, as the
Knights Templar later proved. He, in his own time, was a bit of a
rake. He had departed the scene, thereby diminishing royal power
and reducing his responsibilities in light of total baronial unrest
and an almost bankrupt country. Nominally he was still King but
most historians agree he would not have been a suitable candidate
as a King of England for a variety of reasons. But he was rightful
heir to the throne, being his father's first born. Fortunately,
most of his reign after his corontation was in abstentia, for
one reason or another.
Richard had a young nephew and presumed heir, Arthur. He also had
a younger brother, Prince John, eventually to be King John. Both
were rapscallion sons of Henry II. John was the same despotic Prince
John who was character assassinated, along with the Sheriff of
Nottingham, and gave us the legendary 'Robin Hood', an Oscar winning
movie, and its many remakes. Robin, incidentally, started the whole
concept of taxation in general, and it, somehow, got all tangled
up with the wonderfulness of the Magna Carta, democracy, motherhood
and apple pie. Robin's socialist theme of taking from the rich or
taxable and giving to the poor, noble though it was, somehow
backfired on us. Now we're all taxed. Hand me the Kleenex, Lizzie.
However, John was not in total accord with the Charter of
Liberties, a proposal presented to his great grandfather, King Henry
1st by the ancestors of the northern barons almost a century before.
Through the following succession of kings John inherited most of his,
Henry's, problems, just as he, himself, passed many unresolved problems
down to his own grandson, Edward 1st.
We could assume we've set the table for the image of King John as
King of England, but that's not totally true. We've got to consider
some of the run up history which set this table. This whole messy
episode started almost two centuries before with King Edward the
Confessor, or maybe his mother Emma, daughter of Duke Richard 1st
(the Frearless) of Normandy. This introduces a clash between the
traditional history of Edward as a saintly Saxon King, and the more
enlightened modern version. Edward, it is true, was part Saxon, son of
Ethelred, but his ambience, his scholarship, his pre-conquest English
court was Norman.
Now we must turn our attention north to Scotland and King
Malcolm Canmore(Great Head). This son of Duncan 1st of Scotland
was sent down to King Edward's Norman court in England, probably
as a hostage, by the Earl of Northumbria after the McBeth affair.
He was returned to Scotland in 1058 to become King. Malcolm had
absorbed Norman and continental scholarship. He had undoubtedly
visited Normandy. He took back with him to Scotland his newly
acquired Norman feudality. He began seeding Norman barons into
Scotland. His second wife Margeret was also a cultured continental
devotee to the Norman style, encouraged Norman migration north,
even though she was a granddaughter of Saxon King Edmund Ironside
for which she is usually noted. The Normanization of Scotland
continued unabated through to Alexander 1st who was brother-in-law of
Henry 1st of England, and married Henry's daughter, Sybilla.
The two Royal houses continued their uncertain liaison. Meanwhile,
the three northern counties of England, swung back and forth,
all in the family squabble. King David of Scotland, son of
Malcolm Canmore, brother in law of Henry 1st, Duke of Normandy and
King of England, also spent his youth in England. He married
Matilda of Huntingdon and became the Earl of Huntingdon.
He acquired many titles and great riches. Ascending the
Scottish throne in 1124 and taking many English Norman nobles
north with him, he finally subdued the men of Moray to the north.
Norman seeding continued voraciously in lowland Scotland. After
Henry of England died in 1135 David was pursuaded by the men of
Galloway to go after the three northern English counties again.
The Battle of the Standard at Northallerton was a disaster and
he retired back to Scotland. Henry II of England demanded homage
from Malcolm IV, son of David, at Chester in 1157, confirmed
the three counties to be English. He took him, Malcolm, off on
a tour of France for a couple of years just to get his mind off
things, particularly the three counties, and establish his own
[for those who don't know what a suzeranty is, its like an alliance
whereby one of the parties is subserviant to the other, viz. puppet regimes,
"satellites," client states eg. the flocks around 1st world and other
flocks around 2nd world and the unaligned nations are 3rd world]
However, Malcolm's brother, William (the Lion), who succeeded
him as King of Scotland in 1165, violently disagreed with this
arrangement and re-claimed Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland
as his own. This proposal didn't get too far with Henry II in
Normandy, so William appealed to Louis VII of France, from whence
sprang a friendship known as "The Auld Alliance" in Scotland. Now
more confident of his claim, an ill-equipped William of Scotland
tripped off down to Alnwick with an army but also lost out, captured
by Henry II, who then put him through the indignities, and occupied
a few strategic Scottish castles with English troops for the next
fifteen years. In 1189, William's kin and old arch enemy, Henry II died.
His son, Richard the Lion Heart succeeded, became fascinated with the
Crusades, and King William of Scotland loadned or gave him 10.000 marks
to get lost from England. It must be assumed he didn't buy chopped
liver. But the three counties continued to be the big bone of
contention with John of England who succeeded Richard in 1199. After
many minor border sorties between William and John, William died in
1214. The date is significantly one year before the Magna Carta affair
and the three counties was still a hot issue. William's son,
Alexander II of Scotland succeeded and rabidly pursued his father's
claim to the three northern counties. He was son-in-law of King
John of England. He ventured into northern England. Sorely annoyed
at his son-in-law's indiscretion, King John came storming north and
torched the eastern border towns of Berwick, Roxburgh, Coldingham
and Haddington. Somewhat put out, Alexander resurrected The Auld
Alliance with the Dauphin of France and tentatively invaded England
[There is significance to this word, too, but not important enough to
again, despite his two daughters being hostage in King John's
custody. Alexander surreptitiously enlisted the aid of, and
organized the northern English baron's, although he didn't display
his hand openly. Thus, under the guise of democracy began the
embarrassment to King John of England known as the Magna Carta.
John's notion had been to take from everybody, particularly
the rich everybodies, and give all to John and England, which only
seemed reasonable at the time.
[I have to 'take' it, then, that this, above, roughly defines a _theif_]
Normans and Anglo Normans had found this to be a very effective
administrative method of money and resource management for centuries.
Without money the nation would wither on the vine, a victim of every
predator in Europe, particularly, France.
At his death, Richard had left John with an empty treasury.
He had not only taken the Scottish King's 10K Merks, but he'd
liberated the English treasury at Winchester. John's domains were
vulnerable. He, John, was notable for establishing the first regulated,
true weight, coin of the realm. The monks of the time, and later,
gave John very bad press, which has prevailed to this day but
for a very different reason than is supposed. At the beginning of his
reign he had approved the election of Grey to be the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The Pope favoured Stephen Langton. John refused to
accept this political appointment. The King of kings, as the pope
was known, closed down the churches in England in retaliation, zap.
This would last six or seven years. No baptisms, no marriages, no
last rites, no church tithes. The church became poor. As it turned
out, the common people were not too unhappy with this state of affairs.
But that's a whole different story and probably the most important
contribution to John's bad press by the monks and prelates, the
principal chroniclers of the day. It was even worse than the tabloids
of today. He was called slothful, warped by his passions, and
flaunted the vices of a sordid King. And John's image is further
darkened in perpetuity with every re-make of Robin Hood and in
every kindergarten play. Nevertheless, he more than survived
in his own time. He turned out to be one of the best general/king
strategists England had known, considering the times and the
situation he had inherited. He united Britain as no predecessor
had done. He actually lived in England, the first Duke of
Normandy to do so since the Norman Conquest. Money problems were
eroding his domains. His resistance in northern France and
Normandy considerably annoyed the King of France.
It was claimed John polished off Arthur, his nephew and the
rightful heir to Richard's throne. Could be. But, the court of
peers in France did not support the accusation that John murdered
Arthur, a fable previously reported as absolute fact by the
chroniclers, but now moderated somewhat, down to a reluctant maybe.
Instead, the crime has been established with Peter de Meuly,
squire of King Richard. No reason for the act is forthcoming.
He, John, ruled England and his domains for the first six or
seven years after his official coronation on April.14 1203,
(succeeded 1199) and controlled the growing turbulence and greed
within his Anglo/Norman barons and tenants-in-chief, particularly
the northern barons. Lord Robert FitzWalter was the leading agitator.
His record was far from clean. He had surrendered Vaudreuil in France
to the French king in 1203 under very suspicious circumstances, a
pivotal action in the loss of John's Normandy interests to Philipe of
France. Unrest was growing. On the continent John continued to fare
John, England's first resident King of the Norman/Angevin l
ine managed a reasonable but uneasy peace as he restored the
treasury, and his reserves. Then his taxes on the Anglo/Norman
barons became more oppressive, or at least, more demanding. He
continued to ruffle the feathers of his tenants-in-chief. John
wanted more action in France to retrive his Norman domains and
got the same reaction from his barons as the much later Henry V
got prior to his Agincourt venture. Duke William, 150 years before
had also had problems with those same barons and he took an army of
40,000 north and wasted the land with a devastating scorched earth
policy, so much so, that the Domesday surveyors, 20 years after
the Conquest, ignored the northern counties as a wasteland. This
conflict between baron and king diminished the crown's
effectiveness as a major continental power. History was about to repeat
itself again, as it did with Henry 1st and his immediate successors.
The first Barons rebellion led by Fitzwalter was in 1212 which
King John handled with relative ease. Fitzwalter fled to France.
Vesci, his cohort, was befriended by the Scottish King William
to the north. Where else?
Distance, it seems, anything beyond fifty miles of London,
promoted ambition, greed, autonomy and power plays amongst
the Anglo/ Norman barons, particularly in northern England,
Ireland and Wales. Remember, however, at the same time, in the
background, John's forceful and annoying movement into France,
and his clever generalship which was ever threatening to the
French King. The reinstated northern Barons arose again in 1215,
still under the same leadership.Fitzwalter had returned, he
and Vesci were now supported by King Alexander of Scotland.
The northern Earls, led again by Lord Robert Fitzwalter,
with Eustace de Vesci and Saire de Quincey and others were
the power hungry instigators of the rebellion, not the common
people, as the Robin Hood legend would have us believe, and as
we shall see. The barons just wanted a bigger piece of their own
domains, pay less taxes. Robin of Loxley, if such a person
existed, probably was a small player fighting to regain his
inconspicuous family seat in Staffordshire the best way he
knew how. He was not even a good supporting actor.
But there were other international players. The pope had
been dealt into the game 150 years before when his predecessor
had given the papal ring to Duke William in his invasion of
England which culminated in the Hastings victory. The pope was
vitally interested. In papal eyes, England was the property
of the Lord Pope. During his rule King John played political
games which would make modern diplomats and senators look like
amateurs. He played barons against barons, nations against nations,
barons against pope, pope against the King of France, the French
King against the Dauphin, his son and heir, even the Germans,
the Swabians, the Flemish, bought in. John trod a fine line of
promises, promises, which, like all good politicians, he never
kept. But he was in command at all times. He played foreward
and rearguard actions against friends, relatives and enemies alike.
John didn't succeed in his next visit to France, mostly
because he couldn't get the support from those Anglo Norman
barons of the north, who were blackmailing him and with good
reason, as we shall see. He was forced to return to England
when battles were going well in France, to deal directly
with the barons uprising. In modern terms we would have called
this a fifth column activity. He returned from France leaving
command to his nephew, the German Emperor Otto who really messed
up on John's behalf.
John was excommunicated from the Church, so, in compromise,
he regained his good standing by giving England to the Church in
Rome, but failed to come through with the contract, had no intention
of doing so. He stalled. To avoid the issue, he invaded Scotland,
received the Scottish King's fealty, and took the King's two sisters
or daughters as hostages, a normal but all important practice of
maintaining power, insurance to keep the tryst. He invaded Ireland,
and forced Anglo/Norman barons, the chiefs and petty kings to
give allegiance. He invaded Wales, took thirty hostages,
stopped off at Chester and attainted a couple of his own unruly
barons. His forays were impeccable. His two main objectives
were to protect his money and the hostages in his royal castles
supervised by trusted men. Hostages were not ill-treated and
many roamed relatively free on their own cognizance but they
were an important polital tool of power in those days.
The Barons in the north had appealed to the French King
Philipe against the progressive abuse. The King of France was
presented with a glorious opportunity (if he hadn't thought of
it and prepared for it two years before, wink, wink, and had
probably made Fitzwalter many promises of glory and riches
while he, Fitzwalter, was in France in exhile). But John
kept up his onslaught of the Barons. He wrecked their estates,
took more hostages, and redistributed the power more evenly.
Finally, John was reluctantly forced to deal with his
rebellious barons at Runnemede outside Windsor Castle in
June 1215. They were headed by the Family Compact. He had
danced this force of 2000 knights around southern England
for a month with promises, promises he would meet them.
They had marched from Northampton, to Bedford, to Stamford,
to Brackery (Brackley), and to Oxford. The force become
desperate, and some were becoming irresolute, supplies low.
The barons delivered their 'Articles of the Barons' (the
extant "Unknown Charter of Liberties") April 27th. May 5th
they arrived in Wallingford and formally renounced their
allegiance to King John. Fitzwalter was unanimously chosen
their leader. Had this been the secret signal to the King
of France that an invasion of England was a feasible
opportunity, and began putting the final touches to his plan?
John finally faced his rebellious Barons. Was John just gaining
time with an appeasement? Was he concerned more about the loyalties
of the many other tenants-in-chief, outside of the influence of this
motely crew, his nobles and knights who were probably, collectively,
much more powerful than the 2000 who were there at Runnemede?
The compromises John offered them were relatively small,
and amounted to a limp olive branch. He'd prepared his
offering, not much different to that which Henry 1st had offered a
century before. The major additional concessions were John's
agreement to release his hostages, ensuring his loss of power,
and to allow virtual rule of England by the 25 surety barons.
The frills included much which merely confirmed the existing
practices of John's, Sheriffs and Serjeants, much of which had
been conceeded by Henry 1st. John, as king of England, couldn't
have been taking the whole thing very seriously, in light of his
post Magna Carta actions. It took four or five days under a tent
to get their agreement. It was sealed June 15th 1215 but it probably
was really argued and agreed four or five days earlier by Stephen
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. It became law June 19th In
apparent defeat, John instructed William, Earl of Salisbury to
return all confiscated lands and parks to the Surety barons. The
Magna Carta was born and John shared rule with an oligarchical
committee. The barons had won in principle. At this point, it
should be well to recognize that of the 25 Surety Barons of
the Magna Carta, 22 of them were interrelated by either
blood or marriage.
[I hope it escaped nobody's attention that this is nepostism and thus is
related to career issues since it demonstrates that CV's of merit have not
a chance in hell of beating bloodlines]
Talk about all in the family. But that's not the end of the story.
Pope Innocent annulled and abrogated the Magna Carta and described
it as a conspiracy against, and persecution of, his vassal, King John
[in the past, the church had enormous power. almost unimaginable]
He ordered Stephen Langton to excommunicate all the baron
signatories to the Magna Carta. On September 24th 1215 Pope Innocent
excommunicated all the rebellious surety Barons again, because
Langton had refused to do so. The baron's attempt to implement the
Magna Carta resulted in armed conflict. The situation became serious
but in John's eyes, not hopeless. Nevertheless, he cautiously
withdrew all his royal regalia and jewels from the monasteries.
Officially, on paper, John acknowledged that England still
belonged to Pope Innocent, leastwise, that was what he privately
smirked. King John was just the Pope's vassal but, importantly,
this relegated his barons down in the pecking order to mere
under-tenants, a very different social and power status, and
essentially, reduced them to being landless. John retired to the
countryside and defended his royal castles beyond, and nominally
complied. He release a few hostages, and readjusted some of his
administrative functions and loyal men.
One would normally assume that a wonderful shroud of peace,
quiet and plentitude would settle gently over the land. John had
been subdued. But, the Surety Baron's had negotiated an
instrument which now legalized what amounted to high treason.
They, the oligarchy, could present John with any concocted grievance
and unless corrected within 40 days, he could virtually lose his throne.
But they still lacked most of the hostages. They still lacked real
power. They were apprehensive about John's loyal tenants in chief,
the real power behind the throne. And John now realized the barons were
not about to relinquish London, where they had taken control. However,
John still had control of most of the rest of England, Wales and
Ireland by trusted barons and tenant's-in-chief. This doesn't reflect
the unanimous displeasure of John's rule, as popular history reports,
certainly not as much as we are led to believe by the Magna Carta,
and its caricature of history. The north was now well controlled.
John's strong ring around London with castles at Norwich, Wisbech,
Cambridge, Nottingham, Oxford, Wallingford, Corfe, Winchester,
Dover and his base at Windsor presented a formidable stance
circling London. Later he fixed his headquarters in Kent.
The conspiracy which started way back in 1203 now
emerged in full force. The Dauphin of France invaded England,
with almost as big an invasion force as the Battle of Hastings,
600 ships, compared to the Hastings invasion of 696 ships. The timing
of this D Day type invasion and its logistics must have been secretly
planned at Rouen for many, many months, possibly a couple of years,
probably way before the Baron's uprising, and may even have started
with John's first Barons uprising in 1212. The French landed at
Stanhope on May 21st 1216, despite the wrath of the Pope. John
had assembled his fleet off the mouth of the Thames, but missed the
Dauphin by that much in a storm. The Dauphin disembarked at Sandwich
and proceeded to London. John offered token resistance and wisely
retreated to Winchester. The French laid siege to Winchester and
Dover on June 14th but John was no dullard hero Harold of Hastings
loss, he had retreated, and was on his way to Windsor ten days
before. He wanted to choose his own ground, his own tactics. Dover
Castle, on the other hand, held out until Oct.14th.
Surprisingly, this later conquest of England has little press
at all in English history.
[Many hundreds of years earlier, the Romans controlled most of the east of
England at least until the Western Roman Empire collapsed, but this is a
digression. The Vikings were there at a later time, but before the French]
Encyclopedia Britannica calls it in
passing merely 'an intervention' during John's reign. London
and much of the home counties were occupied by the Dauphin
and the French army for almost a year and although nominally
still England, it was now French occupied territory with an army of
probably over 35,000 men in place. What happened to this little reported
historical fact? Is it overshadowed by the gloriously democratic
romance of the Magna Carta,
[Ahhhhh, nothing nicer than warm-fuzzy, touchie-feelie, easter bunnies,
and tooth fairys?]
and all the legal scholastic attention it receives, and rightly deserves.
The barons were, after all, supposedly the heroes of English history
who had won the day at Runnemede. The family affair. Why didn't this
invasion rank right up there with Hastings? It was most likely the
fruition of a long term plan by the King of France ( part of The
Auld Alliance?) to invade England, using the conspiracy of the northern
Barons, FitzWalter and his cliche in particular, and their apparently
noble principles, as a distraction, a justification, and another popular
In the meantime, here is the answer to the quiz question above.
With great pomp, on June 2nd the Barons and all London citizenry
(the nouveau riche) gathered and formally recognized the French Dauphin,
Prince Louis, at St.Paul's in London as the King of England, crowned
him, and gave him homage with great pomp and celebration. Since
May 24th the Dauphin had despatched his emissaries to the north
and west. He, the Dauphin, now King of England, also claimed
Scotland and Ireland from whom he received fealty from those
delegates, probably with promises of releases of all hostages
taken from Alexander of Scotland and Llewelyn of Wales. After all,
the King of Scotland might get his two daughters back. The French
invasion had been very successful. Theoretically, King John
was now an outlaw in his own country.
However, the Pope, perhaps with some prescience, or perhaps
with precise intelligence reports about the pending invasion of
England by the French, had excommunicated the King of France, the
Dauphin and all their accomplices by name, on May 28th after the
invasion, a sentence of the great conclave of Rome. The French were
about to invade papal territory. The Barons had been excommunicated
previously. King John continued to rampage against the Dauphin's
forces with much success, and the Pope's tacit aproval. On Oct.9th
he visited Lynn and was feasted by the burgers( not hamburgers). He
fell ill with what has been described as dysentery (possibly poisoned ?).
Unwell, he moved north and struggled to Newark Castle. He died
Oct.18th (some say 19th) and was buried in Worcester Cathedral,
robbed of his valuables by the household members in his train.
John's son and heir, ten year old Henry the Third, ascended
the 'throne'. The regent and guardian of the new King was William
Marshall, King John's man, and a half brother whom he had appointed
Earl of Salisbury, Marshall of all his army and of all England,
two years before. This despite his treason after the fall of
Winchester. He had now apparently returned to John's cause.
After John's death, William Marshall, the new protector and
Regent of England, recruited and reinforced the already powerful
royal Anglo/Norman army, with mercenaries and the many friendly
Anglo/Norman barons. He planned to rid England of the Dauphin and
all these ambitious French undesirables. Bear in mind, they were
French, not Norman as he was. Nominally a lawyer, he soon learned the military skills. Marshall ran a vigorous campaign against Prince Louis, the self-proclaimed King of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, and his French army who were still occupying London with our 'heroes', the traitorous Magna Carta Barons, now the acknowledged vassals of the Dauphin and the King of France.
In 1217, William Marshall took Saire de Quincey's Castle of
Montserol. Lord Robert Fitzwalter, the principal instigator of the
barons rebellion, who was still in London, and had now elevated himself
to "Marshall of the Army of God", presumably in competition with Pope
Innocent, or at least, revealing his aspirations to powerful grandeur.
Here is perhaps revealed Fitzwalter's real objectives. He raised an
army of 600 knights and 20,000 French soldiers, and advanced on Marshall.
Fitzwalter, and the Dauphin, the new King of England, and the Count of
Perche his military commander, marched on Montserol. Marshall wisely
retreated to Nottingham.
The Count of Perche, after finding Montserol empty but secure,
moved his force to Lincoln Castle, another royal castle. Marshall,
with reinforcements, now including his own son, William Marshall
jr, and other apprehensive defectors from the Magna Carta barons
who had departed from their surety, promptly advanced on Lincoln
and laid siege. The French army and the traitorous Anglo/Norman
barons were driven back into the Castle. The seige rampaged. Most
of the Magna Carta Barons and 300 other knights were taken prisoner.
There was slaughter enacted by Marshall's superior force, and much
blood letting, some say it flowed in the streets, others say it was
the blood of women and children, depending on which report you read,
but that's how it happens in the reporting of war.
Many of the remnants of the French army were attacked and mauled
on the way back to London from Lincoln by an army which now included
the legions of the "common folk". The Dauphin's worst fears were realized.
The common people, those "poor and oppressed majority" were with
King John, had been all the time. These were the people King John had
been accused of abusing. The Magna Carta Surety Barons were now
landless, without castles, as well as excommunicated, including
Lord Fitzwalter, the Marshall of God, and self appointed governor
of London. William Marshall retook London and the Tower without
resistance, since there wasn't much left of the French army. The
Dauphin and his remnant rag and bobtail army were allowed to
leave England, unarmed, heads bowed, by a pact signed, very significantly
and ironically, at Runnemede in 1217, almost two years after the
Magna Carta signing. This also didn't get much press, either.
Henry III was now undisputed King of England and would
issue his own charters. The excommunicated and abrogated
Magna Carta was history, and the status quo with the church,
whatever that amounted to, would remain for another 150 years
until the advent of Henry VIII, the dissolution of the monasteries
and the Reformation. So endeth a window in popular history
distorted by romance, fiction and religion, but now told with a different pen.
What was it all about? On the one hand, we can say that the
Magna Carta was an appeasement to a ransom by an uneasy family
compact of Anglo/Norman robber barons, supposedly representing
the 'common people', and who didn't succeed in their grand
scheme( or, perhaps, the grand scheme of the Kings of France
and Scotland hatched almost a year before the Magna Carta).
But it was also, perhaps, the ancient culmination of a family
feud between the royal houses of Scotland and England (or Normandy)
and the barons merely their willing agents or accomplices. The common
people, had little participation. On the other hand, with equal force,
we can claim it was a noble expression of the lofty ideals of
man and the basis for democratic principles. At the time, the real
cause had little relevance, except, perhaps, in King John's eyes,
his retrieval of continental territory and status, and his
contribution to English or Norman history. Nevertheless, it
is an important part of our heritage even if the purpose and
motives are oft misquoted and distorted. King John has never
been completely redeemed from his character assignation by the
church but that would make sense. Yet we might also call him
one of the greatest heroes in English history, albeit Anglo/Norman.
If John's brinkmanship had not succeeded, England might now be
French, or even German. WWII might have found Europe totally
capitulated to Hitler. The Magna Carta a heap of smoldering
ashes in a world of fascism.
Was the whole episode, in fact, just a religious power
struggle of uncertain merit, clouded and coupled with the
machinations of land hungry Kings? Before making much of the
Magna Carta, we must realize the conditions of treachery, and
counter treachery which were normal for the time and this would
apply to all the players. This synopsis is brief compared to
some that have been written, from very many points of view.
In our Nametrace search, however, the event produced records
which are invaluable. Not only were the 25 Baron sureties for the
Magna Carta named but also many of the lesser 2000 supportive
noble and knight landholders on both sides. It pieces together
a list of Norman magnates which looked remarkably similar to the
Battell Abbey Roll of Duke William's companions at the Battle
of Hastings 150 years before. Nothing much had changed. Normans
had distributed themselves throughout England, Scotland and
Ireland. The Gaels to the north and west of Scotland, and the
Islands were the only race to remain relatively free of their
powerful influence. The Saxons were still landless and a
very minor influence in the affairs of state. In general, they
were still the peasantry, apart from the rich merchant class of
London, those that gave allegiance to the Dauphin, and were
excommunicated along with him. In fact, almost everybody
of note was excommunicated at one time or another. This episode,
like the Domesday Book, the Ragman Rolls, Gerald Cambrensis Annals
(of the Irish invasion by Strongbow in 1172), the Pipe rolls,
and other early extant archives, are very useful in giving us
at the Hall of Names International reflection on the earliest
crude surname development in the vital protection of
Anglo/Norman property rights in all Britain
Thus, the distortions of history are shaped to suit each
generation, each century, each nation. If, however, we are the
product of history and it is more meaningful to us than a
passing interest, our survival (see DNA, this website), then
our real racial background and origins may be very important
in carving our future and those that follow.
Surety Barons for the enforcement of the abrogated
Magna Carta. (All excommunicated by Pope Innocent)
* William d'Albini, Lord of Belvoir Castle.
* Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk.
* Hugh Bigod, Heir to the Earldoms of Norfolk and Suffolk.
* Henry de Bohun, Earl of Hereford.
* Richard de Clare, Earl of Hertford.
* Gilbert de Clare, heir to the earldom of Hertford.
* John FitzRobert, Lord of Warkworth Castle.
* Robert FitzWalter, Lord of Dunmow Castle.
* William de Fortibus, Earl of Albemarle.
* William Hardell, Mayor of the City of London.
* William de Huntingfield, Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk.*
* John de Lacie, Lord of Pontefract Castle.
* William de Lanvallei, Lord of Standway Castle.
* William Malet, Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset.
* Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex and Gloucester.
* William Marshall jr, heir to the earldom of Pembroke.
* Roger de Montbegon, Lord of Hornby Castle.
* Richard de Montfichet, Baron.
* William de Mowbray, Lord of Axholme Castle.
* Richard de Percy, Baron.
* Saire de Quincey, Earl of Winchester.
* Robert de Roos, Lord of Hamlake Castle.
* Geoffrey de Saye, Baron.
* Robert de Vere, heir to the earldom of Oxford.
* Eustace de Vesci, Lord of Alnwick Castle.
Of these 25 signatories, 16 died within 15 years
Following are some of the major feudal supporting Barons of the 2000 force.
They had previously been tenants-in-chief, the King's Common Counsel.
There are two lists. The first, those against the King,
followed by the smaller list, those loyal to the King. We are
sure this latter list is only representative of the majority of
tenants-in-chief who were not committed to the conspiracy. Most
chose 'a wait-and-see' approach on the side lines. You will
see that some families were divided in their allegiances,
some within a family joined one side, other relatives the other.
It was an early form of insurance. A win, win situation.
[this part may have been on another html page, but is omitted here out of