Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Magna Carta had not been written in 1215? Well, according to a large percentage of historians, we probably wouldn't even be able to vote, or we would be at war, or women might not even play a significant role besides that of wife in our society current. What is certain is that Magna Carta was undoubtedly an advanced thought at the time it was written by King John, for it attested to the death of despotism in England. Although this does not mean the end of evil, it is another step towards a broader and forward-thinking perspective on human rights. As a result, this event has had an enormous impact on Earth throughout history: “Social scientists and legal scholars regularly describe the Magna Carta as the foundation of the concepts of justice and freedom. Magna Carta is the product of a time very different from our own, but it continues to be cited by legal scholars and human rights activists around the world. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The breathtaking objective addressed by this document has been brilliant throughout history, as an example, for those who defended a parliamentary monarchy, the Whigs. However, those who defended the traditional conservative system, the Tories, were not at all satisfied with this proposal when William I invaded England and imposed the parliamentary monarchy. However, what would have been the consequences if William I had not arrived in the country and imposed the system already mentioned? With this in mind, my aim in this essay is also to examine through various articles the simulation of what would have been if the Whigs and Tories had been forced to debate over which was the best political system to establish at the period (17th and 18th centuries). centuries) regarding the high level of relevance of the Magna Carta. To begin with, exactly how important was the Magna Carta after the Glorious Revolution (c. 1688) to the development of the rivalry between the Whigs and the Tories? To be precise, "while the Magna Carta would become an important symbol for parliamentary reformers in the late 18th century, it was in the decades immediately following the Glorious Revolution (1688) that the framework within which the Magna Carta was established Carta would emerge as an integral part. reformist propaganda. The powerful public authority that Magna Carta acquired as a symbolic document in the 18th and 19th centuries is evident in its almost ubiquitous visual representation in political cartoons of the period, meaning that parliamentary reformers would disseminate their ideology through of a perfect tool, the Magna Carta. Again: “Yet Magna Carta endured and became an important instrument in political debates over the capacity of Parliament to amend basic laws. As Anne Pallister has argued, once "the implications of the revolutionary agreement for individual liberty became clear, the Charter re-emerged as a weapon to be used against the new tyranny of a class-dominated sovereign parliament" . and this is so because Carta Magna was written with the aim of contributing to the nation having the same rights and opportunities that the king had before the law. In relation to the last paragraph, the following article claims that the king was supposed to be loyal and honest, otherwise he would not be king "The challenge that Charles I was preparing to launch to his accusers on January 22, 1649 had conditioned thethought of generations of historians. “No earthly power can rightly call me a delinquent, I who am your king,” he proclaimed, specifying that “the king can do no wrong,” a maxim that “keeps every English monarch, even the least deserving. "This means that the king, as he had promised to be faithful to the people, could not cause any sorrow. However, this was not always the case, because throughout history, monarchs, as they felt with total control of the lands, constantly took advantage and abused their power and so on of the nation The excuse given (which at that time was quite easy to believe) was that although "the king was not. under no one, he was under God and the law; for the law makes (SIC) the king. Furthermore, the Tories would add the following idea: “He could do no wrong because if it was wrong; would not have done it, he could not do it; It was void in the act, punishable in his agent', which, from my point of view, means that whatever he did could be neither bad nor condemned because it had been dictated by God and the thought of the “chosen one” (in the sense of being the person responsible for the good of his community These assertions were not so convincing to the Whigs, and subsequently). from the previous statements, they would argue that making illogical statements is not the solution; instead, they would prefer a more just system of government. This is where Magna Carta comes into play: “Magna Carta, furthermore, required the king to recognize and respect the rule of law. » Moreover, other scholars had already made this point, only two years earlier: “English kings cannot command evil or illegal things. When they speak, although by letters patent, if the thing is bad, these letters patent are void. a strong argument supported by the Great Charter of 1215. However, the Tories refused this proposal because for them, a truthful monarch was someone always capable of improving the lives of the people of the region. Taking this into consideration, they would add that not all English monarchs had been counterproductive, as evidenced by Alfred the Great: “King Alfred understood that the law worked the same for all the people. In response, Edmund Burke reserved Sir Edward Coke's account of continuity in order to defend the monarchy – he argued that the monarch, as well as the people, have certain privileges” (Price 24). Therefore, he is believed to be the first successful king in English history, defending Wessex against Viking raids and establishing a court school that encouraged the vital teachings of the time (c. 9th ). What's surprising here is that even conservatives were defending Magna Carta to help them get more votes. “And it wasn’t just those who opposed the government who invoked it. Loyalist propagandists claimed that only a strong monarch and an elite parliament could defend the “constitution” and “principles” of 1215.” Once again, living proof of the importance of this letter. At this point, we've already discussed a bit about the relevance of Magna Carta in 17th and 18th century England, but what about other English-speaking regions? Was its importance also present in other countries? To be precise, not only did the English peoples rely on the law that dictated Magna Carta, but also in some colonies in America “The colonies themselves were generally willing to adopt English common law and English legal practices. When dissatisfied with the government of their colony, they frequently attempted to redress their grievances by appealing to English rights, including those they believed enshrined in Magna.