I believe you are completely mistaken here. The whole point of the English feudal system was that the monarch owned everything (i.e. land) in his domain, and his tenants-in-chief held their lands under feudal land tenure from the monarch.
That may be so, but any limitation on the monarch’s power was typically de facto as opposed to de jure. The Magna Carta was one of the earliest instances of legally limiting the power of the king in writing, and that is why it is notable. The idea of limiting the king’s power by written charter was so radical that King John subsequently requested that the Pope annul it (which he did).
And yes, there is certainly later myth-making associated with it as to its significance, but I don’t disagree that it set a notable precedent.
A little bit, yeah. I thought you were talking about the monarch’s personal domain, i.e. the crown lands he hadn’t granted away, my fault.
Yes, land ownership ultimately vested in the king but in the process of granting it away to tenants in chief the king also surrendered a lot of associated rights. This was a practical matter, medieval kings didn’t have the effective power to rule over even somewhere the size of England with delegating authority to the barons, but because feudalism was essentially contractual it was also a legal matter as well. The question of whether the king was constrained by law or could act as he pleased had been thought of and codified before Magna Carta.
Unfortunately my sources from the last time this subject came up here have suffered linkrot but this is a good thread on the myth/reality of Magna Carta. Key points for me are:
Similar limitations to regal power were being codified in Spain and Hungary contemporaeously a little earlier.
English legal documents from 100 years prior make reference to the accepted limitations onthe king’s power, including in areas such as right to judgement which crop up in Magna Carta.
Legal scholars in the previous century were writing about the well understood limits on regal power.
The point of Magna Carta was that it was firming up existing limitations which John had tried to ignore, not that it was introducing new concepts.
On this specifically, King’s habitually issued charters at the beginning of their reign, which included acknowledgement of the limitations of their power
Actually, I found the two Lord Sumption - Supreme Court Justice and medieval historian - that lay out this case best and cites an earlier regal charter.
But that doesn’t make it factually untrue. I am failing to see any aspect of the battle of Thermopalea that qualifies as a myth. Obviously it wasn’t a victory, but it’s not remembered as a victory, even the most jingoistic retellings of the story don’t claim that
It’s remembered as a heroic stand where the 300 super-soldiers of the legendary military state Sparta held off superior numbers through superior military and warrior virtues, until they were undone by treachery - nevertheless, their brave showing brought the Greeks valuable time and cost the Persians dearly.
In fact they lost the pass through poor reconnaissance and planning within a couple of days of fighting, thus screwing up Greek strategy which had expected them to hold for at least a week, to the cost of the devastation of important Greek cities including Athens, fracturing the alliance to breaking point.
This was not Sparta’s finest hour, it was a fuck up.
That’s your interpretation of the historical event. Obviously the interpretation of all historical events changes over the centuries. That doesn’t make it a historical myth.
A historical myth doesn’t have to be made up from whole cloth. Very often, they accrete around an actual event whcih becomes the basis for a nation or culture constructing or re-affirming its identity.
The Norman Yoke, the Glorious Revolution, “Very well then, alone” - these are all very much based on things that really happened but which have been interpreted so as to become foundational stories about Great Britain and its national character.
The myth I’m addressing isn’t : The battle of Thermopylae happened" it’s:
Sparta wasnt some uniquely martial polity producing an unstoppable warrior citizenry. Its actual record in wars is pretty patchy, Thermopylae in particular was a catastrophic defeat.
But those kind of “myths” can’t be debunked. They are just about the interpretation of facts. Loads of factual historical events form the basis of extremely dubious national myths, e.g. the Blitz, the American Civil war, Waterloo, Trafalgar, the War of Independence, founding of the American colonies, etc. etc. But that doesn’t make the actual factual events themselves myths that can be debunked.
That’s doubly so for ancient events like the Battle of Thermopalea where the actual historical sources are extremely limited.
Yes, but I’m not saying the events are myths that can be debunked. I’m saying the things you have just described as “extremely dubious national myths” can be debunked on the basis of the facts. I mean, on what basis are you describing these as extremely dubious if not on the basis of the facts?
Hmmm…I suppose it becomes a matter of semantics. I’m a big skeptic on the subject of the significance of the Battle Tours/Poitiers in 732. That’s a subject on which many prominent historians will disagree with me and some will agree. But regardless of who’s right, my contention is that the notion that Charles Martel’s victory saved Europe from Muslim domination is likely a too often very confidently repeated myth.
Now the battle actually happened - we know pretty much how it went, who won and who lost, and at least some of the hows and whys. Not much to argue except minutiae on that. It’s the historical impact that is (I would contend) a myth. So, the battle of Tours is no myth, in a Parson Weems sense of inventing George Washington chopping down a cherry tree. But it’s standing as a pivotal event in European history arguably is.
E.g. the Blitz. The facts of the blitz are recorded in incredibly precise detail, down to the last bomb dropped and injury inflicted. The dubious national myth is that this shows British character as a uniquely stoic, resilient people. I’d call that pretty damn dubious, but there is not really any set of facts that could debunk it. It’s just a way of interpreting the historical events.
I agree that this is a dubious national myth (i.e. that the British were uniquely resilient about being bombed) but I think it could be debunked with reference to the facts about the effect of Allied bombing on Germany, or current Russian attacks on Ukraine. I agree that’s not as straightforward as debunking GW and the cherry tree.
In fact, a quick google suggests this work has been done:
In retrospect, the resilience of Londoners in 1940-41 was not unbelievable, and it was certainly not unique. The citizens of Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, and even Nagasaki showed similar endurance in the face of much greater devastation later in the war. Londoners were simply the first to demonstrate the error of the pre-war belief that only soldiers (and only men) could accustom themselves to danger and death, and that women, children, old people, shop assistants and bank clerks were generally incapable of sustained courage.
Personally that’s another bugbear of mine when it comes to revisionist history, particularly when it’s reported in the mainstream press. This is a classic strawman you often encounter in this kind of situation.
No one, in particular no serious historian, ever claimed the resilience of Londoners during the blitz was “unbelievable and unique”. Anyone vaguely acquainted with the events of WW2 knows the German and Japanese suffered far worse bombing. But still you get this kind of headline implying this patently obvious fact, that no one has ever denied, is some kind of iconoclastic bombshell that turns the study of WW2 upside down.
I admit I’m confused. The idea of a dubious national myth that the resilience of Londoners was unique was introduced by you. If no one’s ever claimed that, where did the dubious national myth come from?
I don’t believe this kind of thing actually affects the study of WW2 by historians at all. It could affect how the average person sees the war, but like any other field, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect in-depth knowledge of all historical events by average individuals.