[orthodox-synod] Re: on another note
- However professorial that question, notice how well it deflected others from
discussing the salacious.
At least, I'm glad I gave you a chuckle.
One of the most important persons in the last thousand years, at least to
English jurispurdence, was John, King of England. Were it not for John's
mistakes (or maladministration of the kingdom, take your choice), the barons
would not have rebelled against him, would not have insisted upon the Magna
There might have developed a "jury of one's peers" system, even without John,
but it came much quicker with him. Runnymede and John's concessions came in
And, though torture doubtless continued to exist, and people were accused and
convicted in what were called "Star Chamber proceedings," still the notion
that one is innocent until proven to be guilty became the foundation of our
system of jurispurdence. Thank God for King John! (Father Ambrose is
right. We never should have abandoned England.)
Hence, I say that John was very important to western civilization,
particularly to the Anglo part of it.
I might think that, even if both my mother and my father were not descended
from John, via Joan of North Wales (John's bastard). Like a great many of my
other ancestors, King John has been much maligned.
In his defense, John even had his charming side. When he was being crowned
duke of Aquitaine, as the delicate strawberry crown was being set upon his
head (he was a corpulant, by that time), the people laughed. Realizing he
must have seemed faintly ridiculous, John looked out at the assembled
nobility and winked.
Even important men ought not to take themselves too seriously. Or, so it
seems to me.