What do you think?
Rate this book
Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty
From the author of the New York Times bestseller The Plantagenets, a short, lively, action-packed history of how the Magna Carta came to be
The Magna Carta is revered around the world as the founding document of Western liberty. Its principles can be found in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution. But what was this strange document that dwells on tax relief and greater fishing rights, and how did it gain legendary status?
Dan Jones takes us back to 1215, the turbulent year when the Magna Carta was just a peace treaty between England’s King John and a group of self-interested, violent barons who were tired of his high taxes and endless foreign wars. The treaty would fail within two months of its confirmation.
But this important document marked the first time a king was forced to obey his own laws. Jones’s 1215 follows the story of the Magna Carta’s creation, its failure, and the war that subsequently engulfed England and is book that will appeal to fans of microhistories of pivotal years like 1066, 1491, and especially 1776—when American patriots, inspired by that long-ago defiance, dared to pick up arms against another English king.
The Magna Carta is revered around the world as the founding document of Western liberty. Its principles can be found in our Bill of Rights and in the Constitution. But what was this strange document that dwells on tax relief and greater fishing rights, and how did it gain legendary status?
Dan Jones takes us back to 1215, the turbulent year when the Magna Carta was just a peace treaty between England’s King John and a group of self-interested, violent barons who were tired of his high taxes and endless foreign wars. The treaty would fail within two months of its confirmation.
But this important document marked the first time a king was forced to obey his own laws. Jones’s 1215 follows the story of the Magna Carta’s creation, its failure, and the war that subsequently engulfed England and is book that will appeal to fans of microhistories of pivotal years like 1066, 1491, and especially 1776—when American patriots, inspired by that long-ago defiance, dared to pick up arms against another English king.
288 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 20, 2015
427 people are currently reading
6942 people want to read
About the author
Dan Jones
70 books5,674 followersDan Jones is a NYT bestselling author and broadcaster. His books, which include The Templars, Henry V, The Plantagenets and Powers & Thrones, have sold more than 2 million copies and are published in 23 languages. He is the author of the Essex Dogs novel trilogy. Dan writes and hosts the popular weekly Sony Music Entertainment podcast This Is History. He has presented dozens of television documentaries, including the popular Netflix series Secrets of Great British Castles, and has executive produced and consulted on a number of films and television shows including Anne Boleyn (Channel 5/Sony Pictures Television) and Knightfall (A+E/History). His journalism has appeared in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post; for a decade he was a columnist for the London Evening Standard. He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and in 2025 was appointed to the Board of Trustees of Historic Royal Palaces.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 344 reviews
December 17, 2015
When one hears mention of Magna Carta , it is immediately associated with the meadow where it was established, Runnymede. If you happen to live there today, it is a lushly green memorial park where you go to walk your dog; to American lawmakers, it is considered the birthplace of democracy. Eight centuries ago, Runnymede was a wet, marshy meadow, not quite the place where one would imagine barons and the King of England convening to settle their disputes; nor was the intent of the Great Charter anything to do with 'democracy.'
Author Dan Jones suggests that under the circumstances that forced King John to yield to his rebellious barons' demands, boggy Runnymede was well picked to deter any thoughts of battle, if it came down to that.
The Conception of Magna Carta
What egregious acts brought this infamous king 'under duress' (as John later claimed) to put his seal to articles that have become the foundation of freedom and human rights as we know them today? To answer this question, Jones recaps Angevin history, a subject he is expertly specialized in, evident by his preceding successful books 'The Plantagenets' and 'The Wars of the Roses.' He puts Magna Carta in historical context as it was conceived during the problematic reign of King John in the early thirteenth century, which included the loss of Normandy to France in 1204, followed by Anjou and Maine - devastating losses of the vast Angevin empire built by his formidable father, Henry II.
John inherited the volatile Angevin temper his father was noted for, and though he lacked the great military leadership that his brother Richard I was noted for, he knew the English system well. John's rule was a disaster, ranging from wily financial schemes and extortion practices created to garner funds for war against France, eruptive disagreements with Pope Innocent III which resulted in John being excommunicated, to violent conflicts with the landed aristocracy or tenants-in-chief: the barons, primarily over severe taxations levied upon them. He was an unjust and unlikable ruler who maintained foreign mercenaries, sacked cities in his own kingdom and was exceedingly cruel in his punishments. It is pointed out that one of his favorite forms of punishment was death by starvation, as in the case of the most often recalled example in any biography of King John - that of Matilda de Briouze and her son:
In 1210 Matilda and her son had been starved to death on the king’s orders: it was said that when the door to their cell was finally opened they were found huddled against one another in a grotesque knot of death. The mother had died insane with hunger. Her last earthly efforts were to try to eat her child’s face. p. 51
It is easy to comprehend the barons' rebellion against this out-of-control monarch, but no sooner had the deal been consummated that it was annulled by John and strangely, Innocent III. The country was plunged once again in civil war; this time the baronial rebellion had its allies in the French. Obviously, John had no intention of honoring "the treaty that would impose devastating new restrictions on every future King of England's ability to govern the realm as he pleased." The author takes a moment to paint a humorous caricature of John while charming in public, "behind the scenes he 'gnashed his teeth, rolled his eyes, grabbed sticks and straws and gnawed them like a madman.' " p. 125
The Rearing of Magna Carta
Dan Jones explains with great clarity the 800 year old charter, time worn of its legal relevance but drawing specific attention to the few enduring words which have influenced "any major constitutional document in the last thousand years:"
(1) No free man is to be arrested or imprisoned or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land
and
(2) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice
have encapsulated "the principle of trial by jury, the right of habeas corpus, and the basic idea that justice should always restrain the power of government.” pp.138-9
Magna Carta was reconfirmed several times over the centuries to keep its monarchs in check. For example, it became a political weapon in the long war between John's inept son Henry III and his 'warmongering' grandson Edward I against Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester during the 1250s and 1260s.
In the 17th century, Charles I would eventually lose his head over his perverse attempts to revive a feudal monarchy, to arbitrarily imprison his enemies, and rule by tyranny and extortion. The strategic move by Sir Edward Coke held Charles I "to certain principles of government in precisely the same way that John had been bound by the barons in 1215." p.193
Principles of the great charter sailed across the Atlantic and settled with the English colonies, becoming the basis for independence from British rule and served as a model for the American Bill of Rights, validated in 1791.
Dan Jones has written a fascinating history of the 1215 Magna Carta whose fundamental principles mutated to become the foundation for governmental systems in the free world, and might further inspire principles protecting freedoms and rights as far reaching as The Web. Peppered engagingly with humorous anecdotes, this book is relatively short - its first half appearing to be a biography of King John, and a rehash for myself just having finished the larger biography 'King John' by Marc Morris. But, the two are inseparable: John's legacy is the Magna Carta from which have sprouted our concepts of human rights, democracy, justice and freedom.
The narrative, including 5 pages of photos, ends at page 200 of 272 in the book; the rest are notes, appendices, bibliography and index - a quick, easy read. For the observant Dan Jones reader, his earlier released Magna Carta: The Making and Legacy of the Great Charter is embedded practically verbatim in this one, Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty, the latter more detailed and boasting extended chapters.
Author Dan Jones suggests that under the circumstances that forced King John to yield to his rebellious barons' demands, boggy Runnymede was well picked to deter any thoughts of battle, if it came down to that.
The Conception of Magna Carta
What egregious acts brought this infamous king 'under duress' (as John later claimed) to put his seal to articles that have become the foundation of freedom and human rights as we know them today? To answer this question, Jones recaps Angevin history, a subject he is expertly specialized in, evident by his preceding successful books 'The Plantagenets' and 'The Wars of the Roses.' He puts Magna Carta in historical context as it was conceived during the problematic reign of King John in the early thirteenth century, which included the loss of Normandy to France in 1204, followed by Anjou and Maine - devastating losses of the vast Angevin empire built by his formidable father, Henry II.
John inherited the volatile Angevin temper his father was noted for, and though he lacked the great military leadership that his brother Richard I was noted for, he knew the English system well. John's rule was a disaster, ranging from wily financial schemes and extortion practices created to garner funds for war against France, eruptive disagreements with Pope Innocent III which resulted in John being excommunicated, to violent conflicts with the landed aristocracy or tenants-in-chief: the barons, primarily over severe taxations levied upon them. He was an unjust and unlikable ruler who maintained foreign mercenaries, sacked cities in his own kingdom and was exceedingly cruel in his punishments. It is pointed out that one of his favorite forms of punishment was death by starvation, as in the case of the most often recalled example in any biography of King John - that of Matilda de Briouze and her son:
In 1210 Matilda and her son had been starved to death on the king’s orders: it was said that when the door to their cell was finally opened they were found huddled against one another in a grotesque knot of death. The mother had died insane with hunger. Her last earthly efforts were to try to eat her child’s face. p. 51
It is easy to comprehend the barons' rebellion against this out-of-control monarch, but no sooner had the deal been consummated that it was annulled by John and strangely, Innocent III. The country was plunged once again in civil war; this time the baronial rebellion had its allies in the French. Obviously, John had no intention of honoring "the treaty that would impose devastating new restrictions on every future King of England's ability to govern the realm as he pleased." The author takes a moment to paint a humorous caricature of John while charming in public, "behind the scenes he 'gnashed his teeth, rolled his eyes, grabbed sticks and straws and gnawed them like a madman.' " p. 125
The Rearing of Magna Carta
Dan Jones explains with great clarity the 800 year old charter, time worn of its legal relevance but drawing specific attention to the few enduring words which have influenced "any major constitutional document in the last thousand years:"
(1) No free man is to be arrested or imprisoned or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land
and
(2) To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice
have encapsulated "the principle of trial by jury, the right of habeas corpus, and the basic idea that justice should always restrain the power of government.” pp.138-9
Magna Carta was reconfirmed several times over the centuries to keep its monarchs in check. For example, it became a political weapon in the long war between John's inept son Henry III and his 'warmongering' grandson Edward I against Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester during the 1250s and 1260s.
In the 17th century, Charles I would eventually lose his head over his perverse attempts to revive a feudal monarchy, to arbitrarily imprison his enemies, and rule by tyranny and extortion. The strategic move by Sir Edward Coke held Charles I "to certain principles of government in precisely the same way that John had been bound by the barons in 1215." p.193
Principles of the great charter sailed across the Atlantic and settled with the English colonies, becoming the basis for independence from British rule and served as a model for the American Bill of Rights, validated in 1791.
Dan Jones has written a fascinating history of the 1215 Magna Carta whose fundamental principles mutated to become the foundation for governmental systems in the free world, and might further inspire principles protecting freedoms and rights as far reaching as The Web. Peppered engagingly with humorous anecdotes, this book is relatively short - its first half appearing to be a biography of King John, and a rehash for myself just having finished the larger biography 'King John' by Marc Morris. But, the two are inseparable: John's legacy is the Magna Carta from which have sprouted our concepts of human rights, democracy, justice and freedom.
The narrative, including 5 pages of photos, ends at page 200 of 272 in the book; the rest are notes, appendices, bibliography and index - a quick, easy read. For the observant Dan Jones reader, his earlier released Magna Carta: The Making and Legacy of the Great Charter is embedded practically verbatim in this one, Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty, the latter more detailed and boasting extended chapters.
October 28, 2019
At this point I'm convinced that Dan Jones is incapable of writing a boring book even if he actively tries to. A book about a legal document of any kind, no matter how significant, should have been bound to be yawn-inducing, but Jones's talent for writing page-turning narrative history accompanied by rigorous scholarship makes this book an absolute delight. The only "boring" part of the entire book is the last chapter, which is simply the Magna Carta itself cited in full and an English translation, but even this was mitigated by Jones's excellent narration in the audiobook version. This is a book most perfectly suited for students first introduced to the subject of Magna Carta and its historical and political importance, and - as I was one of those students only a few years ago - one that I deeply regret not having read earlier.
December 15, 2015
If I were to teach a course on the Magna Carta, this would be my text. It is pithy making it ideal for busy students to get both information and perspective. It is written so that students would actually like the material.
When finished, students would have the background for some engaging class discussions: Why did the Pope support King John? What would have happened had he not? How could Louis have been successful in his invasion? If you were Archbishop Steven Langdon how would you handle the negotiations? Students would also have the background for assignments such as research on the “enforcers”, how John lost the continental lands, William Marshall's service to the Plantagenets or castles and their defenses.
While other histories and biographies include the Magna Carta reading about it as its own gives a fuller picture. I came away with a better understanding of the roles of Pope Innocent III and the City of London.
The Appendix includes the actual document, biographical descriptions of the 25 barons who were appointed to enforce the Magna Carta’s provisions and a chronology of the document’s history. There are b&w plates, the most interesting showing the Exchequer sticks with notches showing the status of a loan, a photograph of one of the actual documents and the monument placed at Runnymede by the American Bar Association.
When finished, students would have the background for some engaging class discussions: Why did the Pope support King John? What would have happened had he not? How could Louis have been successful in his invasion? If you were Archbishop Steven Langdon how would you handle the negotiations? Students would also have the background for assignments such as research on the “enforcers”, how John lost the continental lands, William Marshall's service to the Plantagenets or castles and their defenses.
While other histories and biographies include the Magna Carta reading about it as its own gives a fuller picture. I came away with a better understanding of the roles of Pope Innocent III and the City of London.
The Appendix includes the actual document, biographical descriptions of the 25 barons who were appointed to enforce the Magna Carta’s provisions and a chronology of the document’s history. There are b&w plates, the most interesting showing the Exchequer sticks with notches showing the status of a loan, a photograph of one of the actual documents and the monument placed at Runnymede by the American Bar Association.
November 3, 2024
King John was a great scoundrel, you could even say he was the Trump of his time, and if he hadn't been so villainous, there would be no Magna Carta. And, as every American knows, the Magna Carta is the foundation of our liberties and our democratic form of government. Dan Jones, in his rather short and to- the- point book, tells us the compelling story, keeping to the main points and not getting bogged down in details.
Jones starts with the background--the Plantagenet kings Henry II (1154-1189) and his son Richard I ( "Lionheart") (1189-1199). Both were absolute rulers and, at Richard's death, his little brother John came to the throne intending to rule as his father and big brother had done. Unfortunately for John, he was unlikeable to say the least. He was extremely greedy and squeezed the kingdom for all the taxes he could get. And then squandered his wealth in losing wars in France. Finally, a group of barons banded together to oppose the king--before they were all ruined!
This brings us to the meadow of Runnymede on June 15, 1215 ( it should be a national holiday!). There the barons forced John to sign (or rather have seals affixed to) their document protecting their rights. There was no concept of empowering the serfs or peasants in the Magna Carta and certainly no notion of "democracy." But, as the barons' document put limitations on the king and extended the idea that not even the king was above the laws, the Magna Carta provided the foundation for the further expansion of rights and liberties.
Of course, Runnymede was not the end of the story. After a few months, John fought back to crush the barons and war resumed. With John's rather sudden death in 1216, his young son was crowned Henry III. Some of the barons rallied around the boy king and secured his throne. Although Henry turned out to be a rather poor excuse for a king, he did confirm the Magna Carta, with revisions. Over time ( think of Henry VIII!), the Magna Carta would be almost completely forgotten. With the rise of Parliament in the 17th Century, it was revived. And, in the 18th Century, American revolutionaries would see the Magna Carta as the very basis of their struggle for independence.
All thanks to Bad King John.
Jones starts with the background--the Plantagenet kings Henry II (1154-1189) and his son Richard I ( "Lionheart") (1189-1199). Both were absolute rulers and, at Richard's death, his little brother John came to the throne intending to rule as his father and big brother had done. Unfortunately for John, he was unlikeable to say the least. He was extremely greedy and squeezed the kingdom for all the taxes he could get. And then squandered his wealth in losing wars in France. Finally, a group of barons banded together to oppose the king--before they were all ruined!
This brings us to the meadow of Runnymede on June 15, 1215 ( it should be a national holiday!). There the barons forced John to sign (or rather have seals affixed to) their document protecting their rights. There was no concept of empowering the serfs or peasants in the Magna Carta and certainly no notion of "democracy." But, as the barons' document put limitations on the king and extended the idea that not even the king was above the laws, the Magna Carta provided the foundation for the further expansion of rights and liberties.
Of course, Runnymede was not the end of the story. After a few months, John fought back to crush the barons and war resumed. With John's rather sudden death in 1216, his young son was crowned Henry III. Some of the barons rallied around the boy king and secured his throne. Although Henry turned out to be a rather poor excuse for a king, he did confirm the Magna Carta, with revisions. Over time ( think of Henry VIII!), the Magna Carta would be almost completely forgotten. With the rise of Parliament in the 17th Century, it was revived. And, in the 18th Century, American revolutionaries would see the Magna Carta as the very basis of their struggle for independence.
All thanks to Bad King John.
November 8, 2015
An independent local book store chain my wife and I support frequently hosts book signings. In addition to reading books I collect signed FE/FPs and occasionally get them at this store. A couple of weeks ago I received a notification that the author of "Magna Carta" would be speaking about and signing his book the following Friday evening. Friday night is our traditional date night for my wife and I and this book store happens to be across the street from one of our favorite restaurants. Dinner and a book signing, sounded like fate to us so our plans were set. I can't say I had any particular interest in the Magna Carta other than it is part of English history and I love reading about English history. I also had never heard of this author but we went and went without any expectations. The author is a delightful young English scholar. His talk was very conversational, humorous, and informative. I am now able to report that his speaking style is apparent in his writing style as well. Let's be honest, would anybody expect a book about the Magna Carta to be anything but mind numbingly boring? Well this book is not boring. The author writes about MC's place in English history, what events lead up to its creation , and what happened after it was issued. The author, thank God, also has a real understanding of the murder, mayhem, sex and sacrilege that liberally colors English history (a big reason I love their history) and he does not refrain from depicting these types of actions when explaining why MC' was needed. The author also exposes the myths surrounding MC especially as a foundation stone of Western democracy which it most certainly is not. This is a very well written narrow slice of English history about a document we have all heard of but know very little about. This book will correct that deficiency if you read it.
December 17, 2018
In the Disney version of Robin Hood, there’s a ditty that goes like this: “Too late to be known as John the first, he’s sure to be known as John the worst.” Well, the animals had it wrong (I guess wolves and snakes aren’t too sharp when it comes to English history.) John was the first king of England by that name—and he was so bad at the job, that he was also the last.
He did things like stealing a baron’s fiancée, collecting extreme taxes (and then losing the war those taxes paid for), starving his prisoners to death (one of those prisoners was his nephew, who happened to have a claim to the throne), and angering the Pope enough that all of England was placed under Interdict, giving his subjects serious stress about the state of their souls. If that wasn’t bad enough, he also managed to lose most of the French portion of the Angevin Empire—not once, but twice. The first time, he practically gave it away to the French king with the hope that the French king would shield him from the wrath of his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, on his way home from a crusade (via a sticky—and rather expensive—ransom situation). Then he lost it again, after Richard died in the process of reconquering it. Is it any wonder no one wants to be King John II?
Eventually, most of John’s barons rebelled against him. And during the civil war, John and the barons hashed out Magna Carta. He signed it, hoping to appease them. Or maybe just to gain time so he could attack them again. Magna Carta wasn’t that big of a deal at the time, and it was quickly broken. Except, it was kind of a big deal, in terms of the ideas it started about the rights of the governed and the idea that even rulers are subject to law.
Most of Jones’s book deals with the reign of King John leading up to Magna Carta, then the author follows Magna Carta’s influence in the eight hundred years since it was written. Ideas like “no taxation without representation” can trace their influence back to English barons fed up with King John. Nowadays, Magna Carta is often invoked in instances that aren’t a good fit (it didn’t promote democracy), but it’s still a powerful document with lasting ideas about justice, rule of law, and limited power of government.
I listened to the audiobook, read by the author. (I think it’s really cool when authors read their own books. At least when other authors do it—I don’t think anyone would want to listen to my voice for 10+ hours.) Good book, good narration. Recommended if you have an interest in English history or if you just want more than the Disney version of King John.
4.5 stars, rounding up.
He did things like stealing a baron’s fiancée, collecting extreme taxes (and then losing the war those taxes paid for), starving his prisoners to death (one of those prisoners was his nephew, who happened to have a claim to the throne), and angering the Pope enough that all of England was placed under Interdict, giving his subjects serious stress about the state of their souls. If that wasn’t bad enough, he also managed to lose most of the French portion of the Angevin Empire—not once, but twice. The first time, he practically gave it away to the French king with the hope that the French king would shield him from the wrath of his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, on his way home from a crusade (via a sticky—and rather expensive—ransom situation). Then he lost it again, after Richard died in the process of reconquering it. Is it any wonder no one wants to be King John II?
Eventually, most of John’s barons rebelled against him. And during the civil war, John and the barons hashed out Magna Carta. He signed it, hoping to appease them. Or maybe just to gain time so he could attack them again. Magna Carta wasn’t that big of a deal at the time, and it was quickly broken. Except, it was kind of a big deal, in terms of the ideas it started about the rights of the governed and the idea that even rulers are subject to law.
Most of Jones’s book deals with the reign of King John leading up to Magna Carta, then the author follows Magna Carta’s influence in the eight hundred years since it was written. Ideas like “no taxation without representation” can trace their influence back to English barons fed up with King John. Nowadays, Magna Carta is often invoked in instances that aren’t a good fit (it didn’t promote democracy), but it’s still a powerful document with lasting ideas about justice, rule of law, and limited power of government.
I listened to the audiobook, read by the author. (I think it’s really cool when authors read their own books. At least when other authors do it—I don’t think anyone would want to listen to my voice for 10+ hours.) Good book, good narration. Recommended if you have an interest in English history or if you just want more than the Disney version of King John.
4.5 stars, rounding up.
July 7, 2016
This eminently readable "biography" of the Magna Carta is divided into three sections: how England evolved through the reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John to the point where King John would negotiate this charter with his barons and earls, what is actually contained within it and how successfully it was implemented at that time, and how it influenced constitutions and government contracts with its citizens in its afterlife.
Ultimately, the answer is that before Magna Carta, kings had no obligation to respect any of the rights of their citizens, but this was the first document that subjects could point to as an actual obligation by monarchs to respect their rights or at least to bargain with citizens in order to receive the tax revenue they wanted to raise for their properties and wars.
The most fascinating bits are the behaviors of the three aforementioned monarchs and how castle sieges were conducted. However, I would highly recommend this book - 200 pages of highly engaging and readable text - for anybody who wants the nuts and bolts of how, what, and why Magna Carta came into being and why it matters.
Ultimately, the answer is that before Magna Carta, kings had no obligation to respect any of the rights of their citizens, but this was the first document that subjects could point to as an actual obligation by monarchs to respect their rights or at least to bargain with citizens in order to receive the tax revenue they wanted to raise for their properties and wars.
The most fascinating bits are the behaviors of the three aforementioned monarchs and how castle sieges were conducted. However, I would highly recommend this book - 200 pages of highly engaging and readable text - for anybody who wants the nuts and bolts of how, what, and why Magna Carta came into being and why it matters.
November 19, 2016
Good, solid, brief, and very readable account of the Magna Carta, clearly explaining the events that led to its creation and its importance in the modern world.
June 13, 2025
*my rating is not of the book but of my understanding!*
This is actually very interesting and well written! The author was able to put a very dry topic (lol) into actually interesting writing! I learned a lot! I feel like I wasn’t fully paying attention while reading, but that was my own problem! Would recommend for beginners wanting to learn more about the history of the Magna Carta!
This is actually very interesting and well written! The author was able to put a very dry topic (lol) into actually interesting writing! I learned a lot! I feel like I wasn’t fully paying attention while reading, but that was my own problem! Would recommend for beginners wanting to learn more about the history of the Magna Carta!
January 29, 2019
While this book may not be the only book about the subject one would want to read, it certainly demonstrates that historian Dan Jones has been able to profitably expand upon his interest in the Plantagenet dynasty. In many ways, the author's previous work relating to the political history of the High Middle Ages in England serves as an appropriate context to this book, and the author wisely shares this context with the reader who may not be familiar with the Plantagenet origin of the problems that led to the civil war in England that produced the famous document. Also wisely, the author notes that the Magna Carta quickly became a symbol beyond its original importance, as it was originally an unsuccessful peace treaty that sought to reconcile King John with his barons and later became a standard by which the powerful elements within England (and elsewhere) ensured that government was responsible to the people, or at least the people who mattered in a political sense. If the document is now seen as democratic and egalitarian in nature, that is because of where we are and not because of what it was intended to do in the first place, something the author is right to point out.
As a book, this history is short and enjoyable to read, coming in at less than 250 pages even if one includes the appendices, which I think important to read to appreciate the history of the time. The book is divided into four larger parts and further chapters. After an introduction, the book begins with the origins of the problems within England that led to the Magna Carta (I), including a chapter on the rise of the Plantagenet dynasty (1), the contrast between Richard and John with regards to their success against French efforts (2), the years of interdict and John's intimidation of nobles in England (3), and the crisis and catastrophe of the Bouvines campaign (4). After this the author looks at the opposition between the barons and John (II) in a troubled meeting at the Temple Bar (5), John's taking of the cross as a way to buy time (6), the confrontation between the two forces (7), and the position of London as supporting the opposition (8). Then the author examines the role of the Magna Carta in the rule of law (IV), with a look at the events of Runnymede (9), the document itself (10), England as being under siege by the French army (11), and the endgame of John's life (12). The book then closes with two chapters that look at the afterlife of the document (V) (13, 14) as well as a few appendices that contain the 1215 text, its enforcers, and its use and portrayal in the 800 years or so after it was agreed to.
What is it that allowed the Magna Carta to be a symbol of liberty? For one, it demonstrated that in England at least, the monarch was not powerful enough to completely dominate the political space and had to at least seek the approval of the important people of the nation for military efforts and taxation. The limits on the royal prerogative, maintained and expanded through the centuries, eventually provided the space to allow for the advancement of other social classes from unfree to free status. The principles of no taxation without representation and the importance of placing limits on the authority of government then traveled with the English overseas and led to limitations on the imperial domination of settler colonies inhabited by free folk who were jealous of their freedom and their rights. All of this is worth remembering, even as the author makes it clear that the Magna Carta itself was not an egalitarian document and in some cases at least--with regards to Jews and women--rolled back the rights and protections in such cases in order to safeguard the interests of the restive and rebellious barons. Yet, paradoxically, it was in ensuring the rights of those elite barons that ended up providing a model by which rights could, eventually, be expanded far beyond the narrow range of the population that was originally spoken of in the document, and that is worth celebrating.
As a book, this history is short and enjoyable to read, coming in at less than 250 pages even if one includes the appendices, which I think important to read to appreciate the history of the time. The book is divided into four larger parts and further chapters. After an introduction, the book begins with the origins of the problems within England that led to the Magna Carta (I), including a chapter on the rise of the Plantagenet dynasty (1), the contrast between Richard and John with regards to their success against French efforts (2), the years of interdict and John's intimidation of nobles in England (3), and the crisis and catastrophe of the Bouvines campaign (4). After this the author looks at the opposition between the barons and John (II) in a troubled meeting at the Temple Bar (5), John's taking of the cross as a way to buy time (6), the confrontation between the two forces (7), and the position of London as supporting the opposition (8). Then the author examines the role of the Magna Carta in the rule of law (IV), with a look at the events of Runnymede (9), the document itself (10), England as being under siege by the French army (11), and the endgame of John's life (12). The book then closes with two chapters that look at the afterlife of the document (V) (13, 14) as well as a few appendices that contain the 1215 text, its enforcers, and its use and portrayal in the 800 years or so after it was agreed to.
What is it that allowed the Magna Carta to be a symbol of liberty? For one, it demonstrated that in England at least, the monarch was not powerful enough to completely dominate the political space and had to at least seek the approval of the important people of the nation for military efforts and taxation. The limits on the royal prerogative, maintained and expanded through the centuries, eventually provided the space to allow for the advancement of other social classes from unfree to free status. The principles of no taxation without representation and the importance of placing limits on the authority of government then traveled with the English overseas and led to limitations on the imperial domination of settler colonies inhabited by free folk who were jealous of their freedom and their rights. All of this is worth remembering, even as the author makes it clear that the Magna Carta itself was not an egalitarian document and in some cases at least--with regards to Jews and women--rolled back the rights and protections in such cases in order to safeguard the interests of the restive and rebellious barons. Yet, paradoxically, it was in ensuring the rights of those elite barons that ended up providing a model by which rights could, eventually, be expanded far beyond the narrow range of the population that was originally spoken of in the document, and that is worth celebrating.
September 18, 2015
If you want to know the history of The Manga Carta, then this is the book for you. It is written in clear conscience language that is easy to understand.
A version of the document is printed in the back of the book in one of the appendices. There is also a helpful time line and a list of some of the major players.
I picked up this book because I have always had an intrest in the Plantagent family. Also, if anyone is big into the story of "Robin Hood", it serves as a good backdrop to the disgruntlement of the people of Loxley and other forrest dwellers.
A version of the document is printed in the back of the book in one of the appendices. There is also a helpful time line and a list of some of the major players.
I picked up this book because I have always had an intrest in the Plantagent family. Also, if anyone is big into the story of "Robin Hood", it serves as a good backdrop to the disgruntlement of the people of Loxley and other forrest dwellers.
November 3, 2015
Good introductory text, or a quick brush up for someone more knowledgeable on the subject.
December 16, 2025
Dan Jones is both good at telling history and writing a story. Much to learn here about the real history of the Magna Carta.
March 26, 2024
This is my second book by Dan Jones, and it was a risky one to pick up. I found the author's writing of Crusaders: The Epic History of the Wars for the Holy Lands (another book that could have been dry) enjoyable, and decided to take the leap.
The Magna Carta, over the centuries, has become the symbol of American democracy. In fact, our forefathers used it as an outline for the American Constitution. I knew some of the story behind the document because of my love for British History. However, Jones delves deeper not into just the document but the people involved in writing it and the British populace who it was meant to help.
The story revolves around the Plantagenet rule, the year 1215 and King John (for those of you who have no history to fall back on, this is the King John from the tales of Robin Hood). To say that John was a greedy, uncaring King, is putting it lightly. John uses his power, not to aid his subjects, but to punish them. His Barons became vexed (again, to say the least) and were bound to pull John down. They revolted against him, and forced him to settlement, by way of the document. One of it's main purposes was to reign (pun intended) him in and assure that he was not above the law.
Jones is fast becoming a favorite NF writer, for me. His books read more like fiction and he has the talent to keep you interested. For me, this is a sign of a great writer and researcher. Most people dislike reading history, expecting it to be dull and dry detail. You need not fear that with this author.
The Magna Carta, over the centuries, has become the symbol of American democracy. In fact, our forefathers used it as an outline for the American Constitution. I knew some of the story behind the document because of my love for British History. However, Jones delves deeper not into just the document but the people involved in writing it and the British populace who it was meant to help.
The story revolves around the Plantagenet rule, the year 1215 and King John (for those of you who have no history to fall back on, this is the King John from the tales of Robin Hood). To say that John was a greedy, uncaring King, is putting it lightly. John uses his power, not to aid his subjects, but to punish them. His Barons became vexed (again, to say the least) and were bound to pull John down. They revolted against him, and forced him to settlement, by way of the document. One of it's main purposes was to reign (pun intended) him in and assure that he was not above the law.
Jones is fast becoming a favorite NF writer, for me. His books read more like fiction and he has the talent to keep you interested. For me, this is a sign of a great writer and researcher. Most people dislike reading history, expecting it to be dull and dry detail. You need not fear that with this author.
December 14, 2017
Concise, informative, and entertainingly told. On a recent visit to the U.S. National Archives, I lingered over the 1297 Magna Carta that was on display.
1297 Magna Carta at the U.S. National Archives
I felt somewhat sheepish for knowing so little about a document that has loomed so large in the collective American imagination. America’s earliest colonies established charters, modeled on the Magna Carta, to maintain their rights as British subjects in the New World. The Magna Carta was featured prominently on the seal of the Massachusetts Bay colony as residents of Boston kicked off the American Revolution. And it served as the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution some five centuries after it was first drawn up by rebellious barons at Runnymede in 1215.
Massachusetts Seal (circa 1775)
In this book, Dan Jones lays out the intriguing history behind the Magna Carta, shattering many popular misconceptions along the way. I was surprised to learn that the lofty ideals we associate with it (liberty, justice, and the rights of citizens) are not clearly articulated in the way we imagine. The few idealistic statements it includes are often vague and buried in between long passages focused on matters of arcane thirteenth-century legal principles (inheritance and scutage taxes for barons, regulation of fishing, standardizing weights and measures, etc). The document was not drawn up to defend the rights of citizens in perpetuity but to pin down a king who had been greatly vexing a small number of his wealthy barons. The story behind the charter’s creation and how it came to be viewed as the foundation of the Western traditions of liberty, democracy, and the rule of law is fascinating and Dan Jones tells the story remarkably well.
What follows are my notes on the book.
Richard II (the Lionheart) hardly ever set foot in England. He inflicted serious financial burden on his subjects to fund his crusades and other military campaigns. When he died in battle, his brother John took over. In short order, John would lose almost all of his continental lands to France. Consequently, he would be the first Plantagenet monarch to spend significant time in England. His overbearing presence irritated the barons who had grown used to operating with a great deal of autonomy under previous kings. John desperately wanted to reconquer his lost lands in Europe and would drastically increase the financial burden his subjects to raise the needed funds for the campaign. This excessive taxation further alienated his barons (and contributed to his portrayal as the villain in the tales of Robin Hood).
Pope Innocent III would issue an Interdict against England when John refused to seat Stephen Langton as archbishop at Canterbury. The Interdict gave John a pretext to confiscate church lands and money to fund his conquest. All monarchs of that era were calculating and cruel but John seemed to take it to another level in his quest to raise money for conquest. As his barons were on the cusp of open revolt, John placed Langton in Canterbury and reconciled with Innocent III, self-servingly offering to “take up the cross” and lead a crusade to the holy land in order to bring the Pope to his defense. Innocent III’s intervention in the English dispute, instructing the barons to pledge fealty to John, only served to provoke them further.
In the ensuing dispute, the barons had taken control of London, cutting the king off from a key source of revenue. To end the dispute, the two sides met on the marshy field of Runnymede. John agreed to the humiliating demands of the charter and the barons pledged their loyalty to the king. The mechanism for enforcing the charter, however, was the very thing that the document sought to end: baronial revolt. John appealed to Innocent III to have the charter repealed. When the Pope voided the charter, declaring it illegal and unjust, the Barons revolted. The famed Magna Carta of 1215 had failed as a peace treaty. At the start of the civil war, John’s mercenary armies ran roughshod over the country. Then he suffered two setbacks, Innocent III died depriving him of a vital ally and King Louis of France invaded England at the invitation of the rebellious barons. As the conflict devolved into stalemate, King John died of dysentery leaving his 9 year old son Henry III on the throne.
Game over for King John
With John and Innocent out of the picture, Regent William Marshall and Papal Legate Guala Bicchieri, re-issued the Magna Carta on Henry III’s behalf in hopes of drawing the rebellious Baron’s back into the fold. Louis was paid off with 10,000 marks and departed from England. Over the next century, English Kings would periodically re-issue the Magna Carta at times of crisis. As a result, the King’s right to tax became linked with his responsibility to address grievances in the minds of the English. The Magna Carta began to take on deeper meaning as a result. It was translated into English and French and its influence spread. After about a hundred years or so, the Magna Carta faded in significance, only to be resurrected as an example during the reign of particularly autocratic monarchs (most notably under Charles I during the English Civil War). Every time the Magna Carta was held up as a check against royal authority its legend grew. Over time, people began to erroneously attribute ideas like democracy to it (the barons who wrote it would likely have considered democracy anathema). The idea of the document as a check against absolute power of the government over the people particularly resonated in America as their grievances against the King continued to grow.
1297 Magna Carta at the U.S. National ArchivesI felt somewhat sheepish for knowing so little about a document that has loomed so large in the collective American imagination. America’s earliest colonies established charters, modeled on the Magna Carta, to maintain their rights as British subjects in the New World. The Magna Carta was featured prominently on the seal of the Massachusetts Bay colony as residents of Boston kicked off the American Revolution. And it served as the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution some five centuries after it was first drawn up by rebellious barons at Runnymede in 1215.
Massachusetts Seal (circa 1775) In this book, Dan Jones lays out the intriguing history behind the Magna Carta, shattering many popular misconceptions along the way. I was surprised to learn that the lofty ideals we associate with it (liberty, justice, and the rights of citizens) are not clearly articulated in the way we imagine. The few idealistic statements it includes are often vague and buried in between long passages focused on matters of arcane thirteenth-century legal principles (inheritance and scutage taxes for barons, regulation of fishing, standardizing weights and measures, etc). The document was not drawn up to defend the rights of citizens in perpetuity but to pin down a king who had been greatly vexing a small number of his wealthy barons. The story behind the charter’s creation and how it came to be viewed as the foundation of the Western traditions of liberty, democracy, and the rule of law is fascinating and Dan Jones tells the story remarkably well.
What follows are my notes on the book.
Richard II (the Lionheart) hardly ever set foot in England. He inflicted serious financial burden on his subjects to fund his crusades and other military campaigns. When he died in battle, his brother John took over. In short order, John would lose almost all of his continental lands to France. Consequently, he would be the first Plantagenet monarch to spend significant time in England. His overbearing presence irritated the barons who had grown used to operating with a great deal of autonomy under previous kings. John desperately wanted to reconquer his lost lands in Europe and would drastically increase the financial burden his subjects to raise the needed funds for the campaign. This excessive taxation further alienated his barons (and contributed to his portrayal as the villain in the tales of Robin Hood).
Pope Innocent III would issue an Interdict against England when John refused to seat Stephen Langton as archbishop at Canterbury. The Interdict gave John a pretext to confiscate church lands and money to fund his conquest. All monarchs of that era were calculating and cruel but John seemed to take it to another level in his quest to raise money for conquest. As his barons were on the cusp of open revolt, John placed Langton in Canterbury and reconciled with Innocent III, self-servingly offering to “take up the cross” and lead a crusade to the holy land in order to bring the Pope to his defense. Innocent III’s intervention in the English dispute, instructing the barons to pledge fealty to John, only served to provoke them further.
In the ensuing dispute, the barons had taken control of London, cutting the king off from a key source of revenue. To end the dispute, the two sides met on the marshy field of Runnymede. John agreed to the humiliating demands of the charter and the barons pledged their loyalty to the king. The mechanism for enforcing the charter, however, was the very thing that the document sought to end: baronial revolt. John appealed to Innocent III to have the charter repealed. When the Pope voided the charter, declaring it illegal and unjust, the Barons revolted. The famed Magna Carta of 1215 had failed as a peace treaty. At the start of the civil war, John’s mercenary armies ran roughshod over the country. Then he suffered two setbacks, Innocent III died depriving him of a vital ally and King Louis of France invaded England at the invitation of the rebellious barons. As the conflict devolved into stalemate, King John died of dysentery leaving his 9 year old son Henry III on the throne.
Game over for King John With John and Innocent out of the picture, Regent William Marshall and Papal Legate Guala Bicchieri, re-issued the Magna Carta on Henry III’s behalf in hopes of drawing the rebellious Baron’s back into the fold. Louis was paid off with 10,000 marks and departed from England. Over the next century, English Kings would periodically re-issue the Magna Carta at times of crisis. As a result, the King’s right to tax became linked with his responsibility to address grievances in the minds of the English. The Magna Carta began to take on deeper meaning as a result. It was translated into English and French and its influence spread. After about a hundred years or so, the Magna Carta faded in significance, only to be resurrected as an example during the reign of particularly autocratic monarchs (most notably under Charles I during the English Civil War). Every time the Magna Carta was held up as a check against royal authority its legend grew. Over time, people began to erroneously attribute ideas like democracy to it (the barons who wrote it would likely have considered democracy anathema). The idea of the document as a check against absolute power of the government over the people particularly resonated in America as their grievances against the King continued to grow.
September 3, 2015
I received this book as part of the Goodreads Firstreads program. I really, really, hate slagging a book that I got for free, but I must admit that I didn't much like this book. The fun bits, full of blood and guts, were approached in a very dry, "well this is what happened" manner. Then the legalistic bits which I was kind of looking forward to, as a law school graduate, were almost glossed over at the end. "It was reissued a bunch of times, when kings were under pressure." Can't we have some sort of anchors to the crises that caused the reissuing? Some historical context? I know we can't kowtow to pop culture too much, but it would've been nice to know if William Wallace, to pick a rather famous example, was involved in any of the pressure. The only legal thinker mentioned is Thomas Cromwell, and he is only mentioned as trying to get past it somehow. No mention of Oliver Cromwell? What did he think about the document? Even if he never once mentioned it, that in and of itself would be interesting.
One very concrete suggestion I would give the editors -- if the author continually refers to particular clauses in the Magna Carta by the number, it would be very nice if, in the full text in the back, the clauses could be numbered. Or footnotes would've been handy. If this book is a primer on the document, then it should be a lot easier to refer to the document itself.
One very concrete suggestion I would give the editors -- if the author continually refers to particular clauses in the Magna Carta by the number, it would be very nice if, in the full text in the back, the clauses could be numbered. Or footnotes would've been handy. If this book is a primer on the document, then it should be a lot easier to refer to the document itself.
December 18, 2015
Well-researched, well-written and informative account of the lead-up to and the aftermath of the creation and signing of the document that has changed lives for eternity.
May 6, 2018
http://allthebookblognamesaretaken.bl...
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I heart Dan Jones. He is my favorite historian and if he wrote a book about watching paint dry, I would read it because he is the kind of writer who could make it so engaging you would not realize how boring the topic actually is.
Luckily, he writes about people and things that are already very decidedly NOT boring - namely my two favorite families - the Plantagenets and the Tudors - and the eras in which they lived.
Magna Carta is perhaps the most misused document in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with democracy, as Jones makes very clear, and everything to do with the rights of the barons who were opposing King John at an incredibly tumultuous time in the kingdom. Yet in the 800 years since its initial issue, it has threaded its way through a myriad of other documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence in 1776. As Jones recounts, even in 2014 then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that all the children in the UK would study the document because "...its principals shine as brightly as ever, and they paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect an the laws that make Britain" (pgs 198-199). Yet studying the actual text of the document itself (which you can do without going to DC or England, thanks to the fact that the original 1215 charter is included in its entirety in Appendix A) shows that was not its purpose at all. In fact, many of the clauses did just the opposite and its purpose was to limit the power of the king, as well as certain groups of people such as women and Jews (page 198). Yet this great myth has been perpetuated for years and years that Magna Carta is the basis of democracy, something the authors of it would definitely disagree with, and the idea would have been completely foreign to them.
Th author does a fantastic job taking us back in time to 1215 to see why the document was even written in the first place. Due to John's complete lack of ability to be a good king, the aristocracy took it upon themselves to put John in his place, so to speak. Naturally, John had no intention of adhering to the agreement signed that day at Runnymede. Perhaps this quote from the book best sums up John, better than anything I have read before:
"People loathed John. For all the attempts that have been made by historians to rehabilitate his reputation, any study of England's third Plantagenet ruler must account for the fact that he was a cruel and unpleasant man, a second-rate soldier, and a slippery, faithless, interfering, uninspiring king. It is true that at times John was no less ruthless than his brother Richard, nor any less manipulative than his father, Henry. Kings in this age were not supposed or expected to be nice...But if John's relatives shared some of his worst traits, he shared almost none of their best" (page 28).
I loved this book for many reasons. In addition to its in-depth look at the events leading up to, and after Magna Carta was first signed, I greatly appreciated the nod to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Some historians are quick to downplay her importance or dismiss her altogether, but Jones does not do that. Instead he says, among other things, "On March 31, 1204, John's spirited but ancient mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, died at eighty-two. Her formidable presence had kept some order in the empire's south, but her death prompted the King of Castile to invade Gascony" (page 33).
Another historical figure who is finally getting his due in general is that of William Marshal, who I also find highly fascinating. I am always curious how the early Plantagenet rules can even be discussed without mention of the greatest knight in England's history, but Jones makes sure to note his presence and importance whenever necessary. He served five kings and did his best to ensure order was kept (or restored when John did something stupid) - Henry the Young King (crowned while Henry II lived, but never given any real power, thus leading to his rebellion. He died before his father though, and would never see his way to the throne), Henry II, Richard I, John, and Henry III.
Despite the short length of the book, 200 pages exactly of text discounting the appendixes, it is packed full of information. The pages are peppered with footnotes, with additional notes after Appendix C and before the substantial bibliography. There are two maps: one showing England in John's time and the other detailing the whole of the Plantagenet empire in what is now France, both at its height in 1189 and then after John lost several territories by 1215. Appendix A is Magna Carta 1215, Appendix B lists "The Enforcers of the Magna Carta" and gives a brief one-paragraph summary of each of the 25 baron who were supposed to enforce the charter as it was written, and Appendix C is a timeline of important events in the 900 years since Henry I became King of England ad first granted a charter which listed similar clauses as Magna Carta. It also details some of the critical events leading up to 1215, as well as various events in the aftermath, including reissues of the charter by Henry III and Edward I. Also included are references to the charter in the following centuries up to 2015, the 800th anniversary.
While highly informative, this is still an easily accessible read. Dan Jones is a fantastic writer who conveys the importance of what he is writing without dumbing anything down. Highly recommended.
www.facebook.com/AllTheBookBlogNamesA...
www.twitter.com/SarahsBookNook
I heart Dan Jones. He is my favorite historian and if he wrote a book about watching paint dry, I would read it because he is the kind of writer who could make it so engaging you would not realize how boring the topic actually is.
Luckily, he writes about people and things that are already very decidedly NOT boring - namely my two favorite families - the Plantagenets and the Tudors - and the eras in which they lived.
Magna Carta is perhaps the most misused document in the history of the world. It had nothing to do with democracy, as Jones makes very clear, and everything to do with the rights of the barons who were opposing King John at an incredibly tumultuous time in the kingdom. Yet in the 800 years since its initial issue, it has threaded its way through a myriad of other documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence in 1776. As Jones recounts, even in 2014 then-Prime Minister David Cameron pledged that all the children in the UK would study the document because "...its principals shine as brightly as ever, and they paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect an the laws that make Britain" (pgs 198-199). Yet studying the actual text of the document itself (which you can do without going to DC or England, thanks to the fact that the original 1215 charter is included in its entirety in Appendix A) shows that was not its purpose at all. In fact, many of the clauses did just the opposite and its purpose was to limit the power of the king, as well as certain groups of people such as women and Jews (page 198). Yet this great myth has been perpetuated for years and years that Magna Carta is the basis of democracy, something the authors of it would definitely disagree with, and the idea would have been completely foreign to them.
Th author does a fantastic job taking us back in time to 1215 to see why the document was even written in the first place. Due to John's complete lack of ability to be a good king, the aristocracy took it upon themselves to put John in his place, so to speak. Naturally, John had no intention of adhering to the agreement signed that day at Runnymede. Perhaps this quote from the book best sums up John, better than anything I have read before:
"People loathed John. For all the attempts that have been made by historians to rehabilitate his reputation, any study of England's third Plantagenet ruler must account for the fact that he was a cruel and unpleasant man, a second-rate soldier, and a slippery, faithless, interfering, uninspiring king. It is true that at times John was no less ruthless than his brother Richard, nor any less manipulative than his father, Henry. Kings in this age were not supposed or expected to be nice...But if John's relatives shared some of his worst traits, he shared almost none of their best" (page 28).
I loved this book for many reasons. In addition to its in-depth look at the events leading up to, and after Magna Carta was first signed, I greatly appreciated the nod to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Some historians are quick to downplay her importance or dismiss her altogether, but Jones does not do that. Instead he says, among other things, "On March 31, 1204, John's spirited but ancient mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, died at eighty-two. Her formidable presence had kept some order in the empire's south, but her death prompted the King of Castile to invade Gascony" (page 33).
Another historical figure who is finally getting his due in general is that of William Marshal, who I also find highly fascinating. I am always curious how the early Plantagenet rules can even be discussed without mention of the greatest knight in England's history, but Jones makes sure to note his presence and importance whenever necessary. He served five kings and did his best to ensure order was kept (or restored when John did something stupid) - Henry the Young King (crowned while Henry II lived, but never given any real power, thus leading to his rebellion. He died before his father though, and would never see his way to the throne), Henry II, Richard I, John, and Henry III.
Despite the short length of the book, 200 pages exactly of text discounting the appendixes, it is packed full of information. The pages are peppered with footnotes, with additional notes after Appendix C and before the substantial bibliography. There are two maps: one showing England in John's time and the other detailing the whole of the Plantagenet empire in what is now France, both at its height in 1189 and then after John lost several territories by 1215. Appendix A is Magna Carta 1215, Appendix B lists "The Enforcers of the Magna Carta" and gives a brief one-paragraph summary of each of the 25 baron who were supposed to enforce the charter as it was written, and Appendix C is a timeline of important events in the 900 years since Henry I became King of England ad first granted a charter which listed similar clauses as Magna Carta. It also details some of the critical events leading up to 1215, as well as various events in the aftermath, including reissues of the charter by Henry III and Edward I. Also included are references to the charter in the following centuries up to 2015, the 800th anniversary.
While highly informative, this is still an easily accessible read. Dan Jones is a fantastic writer who conveys the importance of what he is writing without dumbing anything down. Highly recommended.
Read
November 10, 2025Once, my friends and I were having a study session. They were discussing coding and trying to figure out C+ and I was reading my silly little history book. Anyway they were being patronizing and I dropped some mad facts about the Magna Carta on them just to prove I was smart as well.
many many years later, they still think I have a weird obsession with the Magna Carta, but really it is as useless to me as it was to the barons.
This was a good read though.
many many years later, they still think I have a weird obsession with the Magna Carta, but really it is as useless to me as it was to the barons.
This was a good read though.
March 4, 2024
A very comprehensive look at the circumstances leading up to King John being forced to sign this document and why it remains such a important document hundreds of years later.
A great read.
A great read.
December 29, 2015
I thought this was a very well-written and incisive book. The text, at only 200 pages after you remove back matter, leaves out nothing crucial and includes nothing unnecessary. I can't say he completely showed me why it came to have the significance it later did, symbolically speaking--though he sets it up well.
December 8, 2017
Great insight into a pivotal document of human history. History turns to myth, which turns to legend...
December 8, 2025
“John, meanwhile, had more to concern himself with than tournaments and bears.”
A fascinating account of how a feud between King John and the barons produced a document that shaped later government(s). Jones uses examples like John’s defeat at Bouvines and his treatment of the de Braose family to show why the barons demanded clauses such as “one of the most enduring clauses” - Clause 39* (no imprisonment without lawful judgment) and Clause 12 (no new taxes without common counsel).
Jones also highlights provisions like Clause 61, which established a council of 25 barons empowered to enforce the charter. This was an extraordinary early attempt at accountability over the crown. He notes Clause 40 (“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”) as a direct rebuke to John’s habit of selling justice for profit. And by unpacking fishery clauses(33), weights-and-measures clauses(35), and even the protections for London’s liberties(13), Jones shows how the barons pushed for uniform rule and economic fairness across the realm.
Jones also shows how Magna Carta (1215) influenced the U.S. Constitution (1787.) American colonists cited the charter when protesting British taxation, and the Founders used its principles in the 5th Amendment (due process) and 6th Amendment (trial by jury). Later generations of jurists also leaned on Clause 38, which barred officials from prosecuting someone “on their own unsupported accusation,” anticipating protections against arbitrary state power.
The Text of the Magna Carta at the end (Appendix A) was a nice touch. It gave the original clauses translated into modern English. This was a sharp and concise narrative of how a peace treaty evolved into the backbone of constitutional government and Western democracy. 📝📝📝📝/📝📝📝📝📝
“The sting of raising taxes to pay for expensive overseas wars is still keenly felt in twenty-first-century America”
*See Chapter 10 for most clauses and Appendix A
-book-club-December-2025-
A fascinating account of how a feud between King John and the barons produced a document that shaped later government(s). Jones uses examples like John’s defeat at Bouvines and his treatment of the de Braose family to show why the barons demanded clauses such as “one of the most enduring clauses” - Clause 39* (no imprisonment without lawful judgment) and Clause 12 (no new taxes without common counsel).
Jones also highlights provisions like Clause 61, which established a council of 25 barons empowered to enforce the charter. This was an extraordinary early attempt at accountability over the crown. He notes Clause 40 (“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice”) as a direct rebuke to John’s habit of selling justice for profit. And by unpacking fishery clauses(33), weights-and-measures clauses(35), and even the protections for London’s liberties(13), Jones shows how the barons pushed for uniform rule and economic fairness across the realm.
Jones also shows how Magna Carta (1215) influenced the U.S. Constitution (1787.) American colonists cited the charter when protesting British taxation, and the Founders used its principles in the 5th Amendment (due process) and 6th Amendment (trial by jury). Later generations of jurists also leaned on Clause 38, which barred officials from prosecuting someone “on their own unsupported accusation,” anticipating protections against arbitrary state power.
The Text of the Magna Carta at the end (Appendix A) was a nice touch. It gave the original clauses translated into modern English. This was a sharp and concise narrative of how a peace treaty evolved into the backbone of constitutional government and Western democracy. 📝📝📝📝/📝📝📝📝📝
“The sting of raising taxes to pay for expensive overseas wars is still keenly felt in twenty-first-century America”
*See Chapter 10 for most clauses and Appendix A
-book-club-December-2025-
Read
December 13, 2025“One after Magna Carta. As if I could ever make such a mistake.”
Adding another Middle Ages history book to my portfolio this year, I’m becoming quite the scholar. Dan Jones’s Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty covers a brief period in the early 13th century during the tyranny of King John, or, as I like to call him, John Softsword. John’s endless foreign wars, rampant fines and taxation, and overall unchecked power ultimately resulted in civil war. The Magna Carta was intended to restore peace by legally binding King John to a list of laws, including promises to protect church rights, safeguard free men from illegal imprisonment, ensure access to swift and impartial justice, and limit feudal payments to the Crown.
Although the first charter of Magna Carta ultimately failed less than three months after being signed, subsequent charters proved more successful in keeping the Crown in check. It is from these charters and their revisions that the principles of Western liberty draw inspiration. I find it ironic that the current political climate in the United States—whose Constitution exists in part because of Magna Carta—still fails to uphold those principles more than 800 years later. One need only compare the Fifth Amendment to Clause 39 of the charter to see striking similarities in governmental overreach and a lack of due process today.
*Book Club - December 2025
Adding another Middle Ages history book to my portfolio this year, I’m becoming quite the scholar. Dan Jones’s Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty covers a brief period in the early 13th century during the tyranny of King John, or, as I like to call him, John Softsword. John’s endless foreign wars, rampant fines and taxation, and overall unchecked power ultimately resulted in civil war. The Magna Carta was intended to restore peace by legally binding King John to a list of laws, including promises to protect church rights, safeguard free men from illegal imprisonment, ensure access to swift and impartial justice, and limit feudal payments to the Crown.
Although the first charter of Magna Carta ultimately failed less than three months after being signed, subsequent charters proved more successful in keeping the Crown in check. It is from these charters and their revisions that the principles of Western liberty draw inspiration. I find it ironic that the current political climate in the United States—whose Constitution exists in part because of Magna Carta—still fails to uphold those principles more than 800 years later. One need only compare the Fifth Amendment to Clause 39 of the charter to see striking similarities in governmental overreach and a lack of due process today.
*Book Club - December 2025
December 10, 2025
The Magna Carta was drawn up in 1215 between rebel barons and King John of England. It was a conciliatory document meant to bring the Plantagenet rule down a peg. Although John put on a magnanimous, kind face, he was fuming on the inside. His pride was wounded. Soon after tenuous negotiations outright civil war broke out in England. Pope Innocent III made null and void the Magna Carta and excommunicated all the rebels.
The document was originally an embodiment of John’s inadequacy as a king, but it underwent many changes. After the king’s pitiful death from dysentery, William Marshal led the charge in bringing stability and peace to England. The Magna Carta was revised. It was no longer a document meant to demean and hammer down the Plantagenet house but a treaty meant to give rights to the people and keep the Crown in check. No longer could they do bad things just because they wanted to.
The charter itself is mostly full of weird and irrelevant legalese, but key clauses became the ideals of the West today. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say the Magna Carta is the birth of western liberty.
The document was originally an embodiment of John’s inadequacy as a king, but it underwent many changes. After the king’s pitiful death from dysentery, William Marshal led the charge in bringing stability and peace to England. The Magna Carta was revised. It was no longer a document meant to demean and hammer down the Plantagenet house but a treaty meant to give rights to the people and keep the Crown in check. No longer could they do bad things just because they wanted to.
The charter itself is mostly full of weird and irrelevant legalese, but key clauses became the ideals of the West today. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say the Magna Carta is the birth of western liberty.
October 10, 2022
I love Dan Jones.
However, for this book I lost a bet. So I had to read it. Not my normal subject matter, and King John isn't really my area of historical interest.
It didn't start off good because Jones got dates wrong in his book, apparently John reigned until 2015. While I accept this is a typo that was missed in edited etc. It annoyed me because my brain works in weird ways.
I enjoyed the content of King Johns reign, the things which happened to him and the lead up to the Magna Carta more than. I enjoyed the sections post John's death.
I really enjoyed the descriptions of the seige at Rochester Castle. It was nice to get to see some local history and learn things I hadn't known previously.
However, for this book I lost a bet. So I had to read it. Not my normal subject matter, and King John isn't really my area of historical interest.
It didn't start off good because Jones got dates wrong in his book, apparently John reigned until 2015. While I accept this is a typo that was missed in edited etc. It annoyed me because my brain works in weird ways.
I enjoyed the content of King Johns reign, the things which happened to him and the lead up to the Magna Carta more than. I enjoyed the sections post John's death.
I really enjoyed the descriptions of the seige at Rochester Castle. It was nice to get to see some local history and learn things I hadn't known previously.
September 9, 2025
4 stars
A bit repetitive, having read Marc Morris’s Anglo-Saxons and The Norman Conquest at the beginning of the year. This comes a tad later in the timeline, but it felt like familiar territory. (Or perhaps I remember more of Jones’ The Plantagenets that I read in 2020 than I realized!)
I think I prefer Morris’s writing to Jones’ — or perhaps I just prefer the broader lens his books take to the period.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this! A specific focus on the Magna Carta (obviously), but provided a good amount of political context. Clearly and compellingly written. Didn’t remember the supporting cast that well chapter to chapter, but it did a good job of giving asides with each re-introduction so I wasn’t confused.
A bit repetitive, having read Marc Morris’s Anglo-Saxons and The Norman Conquest at the beginning of the year. This comes a tad later in the timeline, but it felt like familiar territory. (Or perhaps I remember more of Jones’ The Plantagenets that I read in 2020 than I realized!)
I think I prefer Morris’s writing to Jones’ — or perhaps I just prefer the broader lens his books take to the period.
Overall, though, I enjoyed this! A specific focus on the Magna Carta (obviously), but provided a good amount of political context. Clearly and compellingly written. Didn’t remember the supporting cast that well chapter to chapter, but it did a good job of giving asides with each re-introduction so I wasn’t confused.
August 24, 2020
What a lovely little book!
Really enjoyed reading through this, glad it wasn’t too long because I think it’s easy to flesh out and waffle on a subject as specific.
As always, Dan Jones’ way of explaining history makes reading his books easy and enjoyable, just the right amount of detail. I really enjoyed reading Magna Carta in its entirety at the end of the book as well, really nice addition.
The added chapter on the importance of Magna Carta today, added further weight to the importance of political discussion and understanding. That section alone makes this book worth reading
Really enjoyed reading through this, glad it wasn’t too long because I think it’s easy to flesh out and waffle on a subject as specific.
As always, Dan Jones’ way of explaining history makes reading his books easy and enjoyable, just the right amount of detail. I really enjoyed reading Magna Carta in its entirety at the end of the book as well, really nice addition.
The added chapter on the importance of Magna Carta today, added further weight to the importance of political discussion and understanding. That section alone makes this book worth reading
January 27, 2016
Dan Jones is back doing his thing – providing a highly readable bit of pop history on Medieval Britain. After previously writing books on the Plantagenet dynasty and the Wars of the Roses, here is looks at one particular incident in the Plantagenet line – the Magna Carta. He notes that it’s current reputation is totally not in keeping with what its framers intended. They were aristocratic barons looking after their own privileges, while it’s become synonymous with extending rights and attacking privileges. Also, Jones notes the thing was damn near a colossal failure.
He gives it context. King John’s father (Henry II) and elder brother (Richard I) had raised taxes to fight their wars. They could get away with it because they were successful. Also, they held plenty of land in France, which extended the domain they raised taxes from. But there was resentment at their taxes. John? He was John Softsword and he lost the territory in France. But he adapted, putting all England under his thumb. He raised taxes without precendent and used any means he could to extort money from his diminished domains in the hope of attacking France and getting the land back. Jones notes that John was actually very successful in buckling England to his will. The Pope may have refused to allow the Catholic rites to be administered, but John still held the power. (And then John did his masterstroke – conceding to the power, and becoming the Pope’s vassal. This made the Pope his lord, and thus any who opposed him opposed Innocent III. Whereas rebels against him previously hoped to have God on their side, now the powerful Pope would say just the opposite).
But John’s problem was that he was a failure in war. He attacked France and his ally from the Holy Roman Empire was shattered so badly his invasion was ruined. Softswrord once again. And the barons came out en masse against him. They captured London, and forced him to negotiate.
That resulted in the Magna Carta. Nearly all of it was short-sighted, with only a few random clauses harkening to any higher principle. But it was in there, and it did note that the king’s authority should be absolute. But how would it be enforced? The notion was there would be some oversight on royal authority, to make sure he lived up to it. This was to ensure future peace in England. Instead, it ensured war. John wasn’t going to stand for it, and the Pope backed him to the hilt. He won initial battles, but then things went pear-shaped for him. France’s heir invaded and John’s enemies flocked to him. It looked like the Plantagenet Dynasty was over. But instead John died. And the Pope died too, for good measure.
And a weird change happened to the Magna Carta. It was reissued by the new king’s friends, as a way to heal the breach. (Though without the key oversight clause at the end). It would be reissued many times in the 13th century. It was a promise of good kingship in exchange for more loyalty. He had the right to tax if he agreed to remedy grievances and reform his reign. It worked. It fell out of favor by the more imperial Tudors (it’s not even mentioned in Shakespeare’s play King John). But it came back with the 17th century and never went away. Edward Coke helped revive it against the Stuarts
It’s a good book, and it’s best in the closing chapters, I felt. I wished the book had more on the Magna Carta since King John and less details about the wars of John’s reign. It’s really good pop history, though. It’s not so much striking new ground as giving a readable account of this stuff.
He gives it context. King John’s father (Henry II) and elder brother (Richard I) had raised taxes to fight their wars. They could get away with it because they were successful. Also, they held plenty of land in France, which extended the domain they raised taxes from. But there was resentment at their taxes. John? He was John Softsword and he lost the territory in France. But he adapted, putting all England under his thumb. He raised taxes without precendent and used any means he could to extort money from his diminished domains in the hope of attacking France and getting the land back. Jones notes that John was actually very successful in buckling England to his will. The Pope may have refused to allow the Catholic rites to be administered, but John still held the power. (And then John did his masterstroke – conceding to the power, and becoming the Pope’s vassal. This made the Pope his lord, and thus any who opposed him opposed Innocent III. Whereas rebels against him previously hoped to have God on their side, now the powerful Pope would say just the opposite).
But John’s problem was that he was a failure in war. He attacked France and his ally from the Holy Roman Empire was shattered so badly his invasion was ruined. Softswrord once again. And the barons came out en masse against him. They captured London, and forced him to negotiate.
That resulted in the Magna Carta. Nearly all of it was short-sighted, with only a few random clauses harkening to any higher principle. But it was in there, and it did note that the king’s authority should be absolute. But how would it be enforced? The notion was there would be some oversight on royal authority, to make sure he lived up to it. This was to ensure future peace in England. Instead, it ensured war. John wasn’t going to stand for it, and the Pope backed him to the hilt. He won initial battles, but then things went pear-shaped for him. France’s heir invaded and John’s enemies flocked to him. It looked like the Plantagenet Dynasty was over. But instead John died. And the Pope died too, for good measure.
And a weird change happened to the Magna Carta. It was reissued by the new king’s friends, as a way to heal the breach. (Though without the key oversight clause at the end). It would be reissued many times in the 13th century. It was a promise of good kingship in exchange for more loyalty. He had the right to tax if he agreed to remedy grievances and reform his reign. It worked. It fell out of favor by the more imperial Tudors (it’s not even mentioned in Shakespeare’s play King John). But it came back with the 17th century and never went away. Edward Coke helped revive it against the Stuarts
It’s a good book, and it’s best in the closing chapters, I felt. I wished the book had more on the Magna Carta since King John and less details about the wars of John’s reign. It’s really good pop history, though. It’s not so much striking new ground as giving a readable account of this stuff.
December 10, 2015
I have previously enjoyed reading Dan Jones' books, The Plantagenets and The Wars of the Roses and I find the history of 13th and 14th century England and Europe in general quite fascinating, so I looked forward to reading Jones' new book, Magna Carta: The Birth of Liberty. But even though the subject interests me and Jones is a very good writer of histories meant for the general population, for some reason, I just couldn't get connected to the flow of the narrative. Maybe it had more to do with my distractions than with the quality of the writing.
As most people probably do, I had some general knowledge of the Magna Carta as a founding document of western democracies but I wasn't especially knowledgable about the intricacies of how it came about and the background that led up to it. Nor was I really aware that the original didn't last more than a matter of months and that it was reissued again and again in the decades that followed the end of John's reign.
It turns out that John was just as unsavory a character as we were led to believe in all those Robin Hood stories, although, as Dan Jones carefully points out, the real Robin Hood did not actually come along until later, long after John was dead. As king, it seems that John was almost universally hated and with good reason, too.
John was, of course, the youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Two of their five sons lived to be king of England. Richard the Lionheart was first after the death of his father. He was mostly an absentee king, often on crusade and then banged up in prison for a while when he was captured by enemies and held for ransom. England paid the ransom and got their king back, but he was soon off again and died abroad.
Richard had no heirs and so his brother was next in line. John became king on April 6, 1199 and ruled until his death on October 19, 1216. During that time he carried on a dispute with Pope Innocent III but was later reconciled with him, and Innocent supported him in his later battles with the barons of England.
The barons hated him for many reason and finally forced upon him the agreement known as the Magna Carta at Runnymede near Windsor Castle on June 15, 1215. It was meant to rein in the worst of John's excesses, but, as I've already noted, it didn't endure for long in its original form.
It's interesting that this failed document has had such a deep and lasting impact on later societies seeking to establish governments, including our own. It was one of the documents which inspired the writing of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. So, perhaps Jones is right in characterizing it as "The Birth of Liberty."
Jones' books are carefully researched and this one is well-documented with footnotes and with an extensive bibliography. Moreover, he lays out the history of the document and its later influence on government in a straightforward and easy-to-follow manner. I'm not quite sure why it didn't grab my interest more than it did, but I certainly would not hesitate to recommend to anyone seeking information and an understanding of this important episode in the history of England and the West.
As most people probably do, I had some general knowledge of the Magna Carta as a founding document of western democracies but I wasn't especially knowledgable about the intricacies of how it came about and the background that led up to it. Nor was I really aware that the original didn't last more than a matter of months and that it was reissued again and again in the decades that followed the end of John's reign.
It turns out that John was just as unsavory a character as we were led to believe in all those Robin Hood stories, although, as Dan Jones carefully points out, the real Robin Hood did not actually come along until later, long after John was dead. As king, it seems that John was almost universally hated and with good reason, too.
John was, of course, the youngest son of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine. Two of their five sons lived to be king of England. Richard the Lionheart was first after the death of his father. He was mostly an absentee king, often on crusade and then banged up in prison for a while when he was captured by enemies and held for ransom. England paid the ransom and got their king back, but he was soon off again and died abroad.
Richard had no heirs and so his brother was next in line. John became king on April 6, 1199 and ruled until his death on October 19, 1216. During that time he carried on a dispute with Pope Innocent III but was later reconciled with him, and Innocent supported him in his later battles with the barons of England.
The barons hated him for many reason and finally forced upon him the agreement known as the Magna Carta at Runnymede near Windsor Castle on June 15, 1215. It was meant to rein in the worst of John's excesses, but, as I've already noted, it didn't endure for long in its original form.
It's interesting that this failed document has had such a deep and lasting impact on later societies seeking to establish governments, including our own. It was one of the documents which inspired the writing of the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. So, perhaps Jones is right in characterizing it as "The Birth of Liberty."
Jones' books are carefully researched and this one is well-documented with footnotes and with an extensive bibliography. Moreover, he lays out the history of the document and its later influence on government in a straightforward and easy-to-follow manner. I'm not quite sure why it didn't grab my interest more than it did, but I certainly would not hesitate to recommend to anyone seeking information and an understanding of this important episode in the history of England and the West.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 344 reviews