Horse 3479 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion III

4

The keeper of the land of such an heir who is  under age is only to take reasonable sums issuing from the heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services, and this without destruction or waste of men or things. And if we assign custody of any such land to a sheriff or to anyone else who should answer to us for the issues, and such a person should commit destruction or waste, we will take amends from him and the land will be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who will answer to us or to the person to whom we assign such land for the land’s issues. And if we give or sell to anyone custody of any such land and that person commits destruction or waste, he is to lose custody and the land is to be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly will answer to us as is aforesaid.

- 

On the face of it, taking "reasonable sums issuing from the heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services" sounds like a reasonable thing to do. However, the concept of the theoretical "reasonable" person and who exactly got to decide what was actually "reasonable", was already defined at law from before time immemorial. Time immemorial was established in 1275 as being anything before the reign of Richard I, which began on July 6th, 1189.

The theoretical "reasonable" person is one who is imagined as being from the same class and status as the one who is being assized, arraigned, or otherwise being made to answer or asking to answer in court. Since Magna Carta is being imposed by the earls and barons, the unwritten assumption is that the theoretical "reasonable" person will be one of them. 

If you then reread Clause 4 in that light, the clauses "we will take amends from him" and "law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly will answer to us” instead of being benevolent, sounds as ominous and foreboding as the entire weight of the law coming down upon someone should do. Who owns the law? None other than the same earls and barons who will decide what is "reasonable".

Now as this applies to the common folk of the realm such as the serf and slaves, taking their whole estate might well be seen as "reasonable" by the rich and powerful. 

5

The keeper, for as long as he has the custody of the land of such (an heir), is to maintain the houses, parks, fishponds, ponds, mills and other things pertaining to that land from the issues of the same land, and he will restore to the heir, when the heir comes to full age, all his land stocked with ploughs and all other things in at least the same condition as when he received it. All these things are to be observed in the custodies of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, priories, churches and vacant offices which pertain to us, save that such custodies ought not to be sold.-

-

Clause 3, 4, 5, and 6, all have to do with the inheritance of an heir whom we assume is already a baron, earl, knight, or other landed gentry. As late as the 1830s and the great Reform Acts, the assumption was that heirs and heiresses would either their estates maintained by a guardian until they reached the age of legal majority (which was 21 right up until 1970).

What this means in essence is that all four of these clauses, give right and reward to whomever is in charge of the estate of a minor until the clock ran out. There is of course an obvious internal conflict of interest here. Clause 5 calls for the restoration of an estate to “at least the same condition as when he received it”; which means that any and all improvements, and any and all rewards that might have arisen, belong to “the keeper”. 

This is made all the more delicious for a keeper when you consider that an estate includes only of the things in existence at the time of someone’s death, and if there has been any discovery of minerals, metals, gold, silver, or any increase in flocks and herds, they were all free for the taking by the keeper. Moreover, as an estate and land title only extends to the surface of the land, then mines which might be profitable, could, would, and did continue to operate after the heir had come to the age of majority.

6

Heirs are to be married without disparagement.

-

Whoa, we have a straightforward clause. Or do we?

Remember, an “heir” is already presumed to be a baron, earl, knight, or other member of the landed gentry. Someone who owns their house freehold, is not assumed to in this class; neither are serfs or slaves. In fact, as serfs and especially slaves may be disparaged without legal consequence and the children of slaves maybe sold on as though they were the chattel and produce of the land, then Clause 6 is of no practical consequence to them. 

<><><><><>

What are to we make of these three clauses as they apply to the cookers in court who try to claim that they are Sovereign Citizens. They truth is that few if any of them at all are barons, earls, or knights. At any rate, Sir Such-and-Such is unlikely to make this kind of appeal in court because they more than likely already have the means to pursue actual legal representation. 

All of this means to say that the running tally, of Clauses in Magna Carta which might apply to someone in court in Australia today is:

0/6

Horse 3478 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion II

1

In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the free men of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity.

-

This first thing demanded was that the English Church, which at this stage is still in communion with the general Catholic church which is headed in Rome, should be free and at liberty to do what it likes. Remember, a 'right' is the ability to do a thing, own a thing, or have interest in a thing. Probably by claiming that the English Church should be free, the barony is trying to curry favour with its domestic clergy.

The feudal system as an organisational set of hierarchies, had the King at the very top, the barons and the lords next, maybe some knights and other landed gentry, then the guild operators and the freemen of the cities, towns and hamlets, and finally the serfs, indentured serfs, and outright slaves. Presumably the "free men" contained in Clause 1, were the barons and the landed gentry and the guildspeople but that's as far as this would be extended. Clause 1 claims no rights for the people who are not 'free'. 

Clause 1 also very much reflects the fact that the entire of society is stratified according to where one was born, and what one inherits. There is no obvious method of improvement or advancement up the strata unless one either is able to gain an apprenticeship of some kind, perhaps buy some land somehow, maybe excel in battle and be given something or be given a title, or at the very top by doing what William had done not quite a century and a half before this charter was issued the first time and go stabby-rip-stab-stab on the fabric of an entire nation. Kill the King; become King.

The fact that the church was the very first thing to be mentioned in the original 1215 text, might suggest that the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, probably saw this as good as any other mechanism to try and needle some more power for the church in England. In this respect, the English Church which was subservient to the church in Rome was in a similar position to the barony in England. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and certainly the combined forces on the continent were a threat to domestic English tranquility.

2

If any of our earls or barons, or anyone else holding from us in chief by military service should die, and should his heir at the time be of full age and owe relief, the heir is to have his inheritance for the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl for a whole earldom £100, the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony 100 marks, the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee 100 shillings at most, and he who owes less will give less, according to the ancient custom of (knights’) fees.

-

Generally speaking, within the imposed Norman feudal system, if the King wanted to go to war, they extracted taxation from the dukes and barons. The dukes and barons then extracted taxation from the knights and other landed gentry. They then extracted taxation from the guildspeople and the freemen. Presumably this far down the ladder, they would extract labour from their indentured serfs and slaves.

In relation to all of this, the term "fee" is somewhat misleading here. A knight's "fee" is some unit of land which is necessary for the maintenance of that knight and maybe his retinue, for the purpose of sending him off to war. One of the fun things about what the knights and gentry could do if they didn't particularly like the prospect of being sent to fight in a war, was that they could send infantry instead. Of course that infantry would likely be made up of the same poor guildspeople, freemen, serfs, and slaves, from whom they were already extracting taxation and labour from.

Clause 2 only cares about the affairs of earls or barons and while it might talk about there being an inheritance for the heirs who will follow, Clause 2 in operation actually intends to condensate wealth into the hands of fewer people. The people at the top who can no longer extract military service from those below by virtue of them being dead (which is suboptimal) can extract the equivalence but only to a point. The heirs of the dead baron, dead knight, are still to have a useful ability to keep up the maintenance of taxation.

For reference, the going rate for a day labourer in the year 1302 was two pennies per day which at an upper bound is still only £2/6/- per year. As Magna Carta was developed by the barony and the earls, they wanted to extract what they could from below, while being left with an ample estate from above.

3

If, however, the heir of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him or his land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of his lords until the aforesaid term.

-

This same subject continued more or less confirms the fact that the feudal system which extracted taxation from all below, will continue to do so. Someone who might inherit an estate will not do so until the time that they have achieved majority unless they are made a knight, which by inference means that they will be sent out for military service. In the meantime, which might be as many as twenty-one years if the only heir happens to be a baby, then all of the working produce of the land will be the right of the lord to claim.

If we remember that before the industrial revolution and the installation of water and sewerage lines which meant that clean potable water went into people's houses, that the majority of everyone ever born didn't even live to see their tenth birthday, then this clause is actually a sneaky little mechanism to ensure that lands remain in the custody of lords (and then transfer if the heirs die), for long periods of time.

<><><><><>

What does any of this have to do with the Sovereign Citizen movement? Well nothing quite frankly. Therein lies why I find the whole notion of these people standing up in court and trying to claim something from Magna Carta as the reason why they shouldn't have to pay a speeding fine, or a fine for driving while disqualified, so ridiculous. 

At the end of these pieces, I am going to include a running tally for the number of sections in Magna Carta which by the absolute most generous reading might apply to these people. 

Today's tally is:

0/3

Horse 3477 - Magna Carta - The BIG Delusion

One of the fun things about living in Australia is that the kind of nutso whackjob idiocy that the Sovereign Citizen movement has tried cut and paste from America, doesn't really fit here at all. A favourite line of attempted defence when coming before the law is to say that they do not consent to the law, as if their consent actually mattered in an actual sovereign nation. The truth is that there is not right not to follow the law.

On the other hand as we do in the remnants of Empire, then occasionally people who claim to be Sovereign Citizens will try to throw legal treacle at the wall and hope that anything sticks. I have heard people claim that Australia is a corporation which is registered in the United States and ceased to be a country during the Whitlam Government, I have heard entire diatribes explaining how because the Commonwealth of Australia Act was passed in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster it doesn't apply here, but the favourite piece of legal treacle is to claim something vague about Magna Carta as though it was like some magic words.

The truth is that Magna Carta was a chart of rights in 1215, which the Archbishop of Canterbury helped to draft as a kind of appeasement covenant, to try and stop a revolt from the English barony who had both the means and the animal spirits to run through the king with many many swords. Having basically sequestered King John and transported him to a fairly anonymous field in Runnymede, the barons put forward their BIG CHART (Magna Carta) of demands, and threatened to turn John into smaller bits of delicious meat for their dogs. 

The real irony was that none of the rights demanded would make any kind of sense or even necessarily apply to the kinds of people who decide to self identify as  Sovereign Citizens. Most of them at best would likely have gained the franchise with the Reform Acts of the 1830s, or maybe even later with various Representation of the People Acts. As far as Australia goes, with the exception of Aboriginal peoples who some cases didn't get the franchise until 1962, most people in Australia had the franchise in 1902; which is still vastly different from claiming that Magna Carta, which wasn't even an Act of Parliament at the time, somehow applied some 687 years earlier.

What's also ironic is that neither the 25 barons who threatened to go stabby-rip-stab-stab on the king, or the king, stood by their commitments and the whole thing was annulled by Pope Innocent III; which eventually led to the First Baron's War, six months later. So much for Big Charters.

The current text dates from 1225 when Henry III reissued it, hoping to quell another revolt; and the formal confirmation of the text as received law in 1297 when Edward I "inspected" it as the Inspeximus issue.

Often when these Sovereign Citizens try to wave Magna Carta all over the place like a banner, judges who are legally trained (obviously) will often ask what these people rely on at law. The answers proffered are often vague and silly, and collapse to the Dennis Denuto school of legal practice of relying on "the vibe".

But what is particularly singular is that what is often the case, is that as Magna Carta is absolutely irrelevant in Australia, and in any legal context here, judges themselves have often never read it. Why would they need to? Judges having never read Magna Carta is like me never having read any of the Medici's treatises on Accounting. Sure, they might be fun to read but why bother?

That last question answers itself. Sure, they might be fun to read but why bother? Why bother? Precisely because it's fun to read. So then, without further adieu, parte the first of Magna Carta - Inspeximus issue of Magna Carta (1297).

<><><><><>

0

Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:

-

The beginning preamble to the 1297 text, explains that Edward has "inspected" the charter and intends to reissue it. What makes this particularly interesting is what you can not see in this text. Edward is King of England and can not speak English. The text of Magna Carta was written in Latin as that was the official language of the law and the inns at court. Meanwhile John, Henry and now Edward, like all the kings who followed in the wake of the Norman Conquest of 1066, all spoke French. The first English king to speak English was Henry IV who only came to the throne in 1399.

At this point, Edward is still very much a Gallic king and this 1297 text reflects the fact that he has a boot on Ireland, another boot in French Aquitaine, and still looks down upon England as though it was a thing which is very much beneath him. It should be pointed out that England is not the world superpower that it is going to be by a longshot, though in comparison to the many many kingdoms, fiefdoms, duchies, and city-states of Europe, it is quite stable. It is also a prize worth having because that stability lends itself to a reliable extraction of taxation.

0

Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

-

Herein lies the reason for the existence of the Magna Carta in the first place. In 1215, you had an English populace being ruled by an extractive French monarchy, from outside of England. It took a few generations for the English to regroup but by the beginning of the thirteenth century, they had amassed enough of a force that they could make the French take notice.

Henry III's concession in 1225, which is reaffirmation of Magna Carta in this paragraph, happens while Henry is just 17 years old. Again, this was a case of the barony of England trying to secure for itself rights and concessions, while the king was still a minor. It must be said that as the king grew up, assumed the age of majority and actually could command the field in his own right, his ability to extract taxation from the English also grew. The 1225 addition to the text which seems quite lovely, probably also belies the fact that they English baronry was still very much prepared to engage upon a policy of stabby-rip-stab-stab on the king at a moment's notice. Generally speaking, being stabbed and cut into pieces is suboptimal. 

Horse 3476 - "Grease" Actually Isn't The Word That I Heard

While driving home from a friend's place last night, I twiddled the dial on the radio and stumbled upon the once great and now zombie radio station 2UE. 2UE has gone from being probably Sydney's most raging commercial success to a tired old station, for tired old people, playing tired old music, under the ownership of Nine Entertainment Co.

I happened to stumble into 2UE playing the songs from the musical 'Grease', which unlike the titular track of the same name, no longer appears to have groove or meaning.

As someone who was born not long after the film version of the musical came out in 1978, I have been haunted by this piece of media for a very long time. What I found singularly strange about this particular listen though, is just how 1970s the music actually sounds. This is ironic given that it is supposed to be a satire/homage/subversion/celebration of the 1950s. 

I know what music of the 1950s is supposed to sound like. This was that mad point in time where rock and roll had just exploded, where jazz was still hanging on, and where crooners and ballads and country, all were commonplace. That's mostly not the problem with Grease. It is absurdly easy for a semi-accomplished musician to think about doo-wop changes and 12-bar blues. No. The reason why Grease sounds so 1970s, is the orchestration.

Music from the 1950s was at best recorded onto 4-track tape in the studio and then if other highlights and embellishments needed to be made, they were added by 'bouncing' the existing tracks to stereo and adding the rest later. When it came to the consumer listening to music at home, almost the entirety of music was mono right up until about 1957. This means that music from the 1950s, sounds more compressed and if you want to achieve the proper sound coming from a jukebox, then you need to turn the bass up as far as it will go.

Grease doesn't sound like this at all. By 1978, Stereo was normal, 24-track recording was the industry standard, and in addition to electric organs, the synthesiser was already everywhere. The recording of Grease very obviously sounds like it exists alongside disco. It is definitely not a rock and roll record. Naturally if a thing purporting to be aping the 1950s doesn't actually sound like the 1950s, then I have a problem. If the thing committed to film and record doesn't match the thing it's supposed to be, then what in blue blazes was it originally supposed to sound like?

The actual musical which debuted on Broadway in 1971, has a score which is supposed to be played in real time by an upright piano, 2 guitars (being lead and rhythm, and depending on the number in electric or acoustic), one bass, 2 saxophones, and an unshielded drum kit. It is also supposed to have 4 female and 4 male singers, who are unseen by the audience.

This means that the live performance as originally played, would have likely sounded quite a lot like the 1950s. Coming up with old valve amplifiers would not have been a problem in 1971, as all transistor amplifiers only began to show up in the mid-1970s. Grease as a live show, probably would have sounded like a 1950s show because all the equipment was still nominally identical.

This means to say that the only set of recordings that I have heard are not even a good simulacrum of what they are supposed to be. 

"Their lips are lying, only real is real"

If the only set of recordings that I have ever heard are wrong and if reality itself isn't real, then what kind of game are we playing at here?

It turns out that "Grease" actually isn't the word that I heard, and that the groove and meaning that it has got are wrong. "Grease" is not the time, or the place, or the motion, and it certainly wasn't the way we are feeling.

(and I don't even particularly like the musical either)

Horse 3475 - The Brisbane Metro Opens And The Gunzels Go Mad

 The Brisbane Metro officially opened on the 1st of July (after these buses had been operating on other routes) and transit nerds and anoraks have been freaking out about it as though it was the public transit spawn of Satan.

It is not.

It is a high-frequency bus rapid transit system that if played out properly, will eventually expand to become a network.

I do not understand the transit nerds' and anoraks' meltdown over this. The buses themselves are 3-section bi-articulated buses; with dual engine sections as push/pull. Granted that this is being marketed as buses cosplaying as something bigger but given that this is cheaper to implement, that there are 60 units operating on the M1 and M2 routes, I would have thought that this would have been good enough.

I like the bendy-buses that Sydney Buses/Gladys'-Private-Kids runs, and have travelled on many E, X and L buses right up and down the North Shore and Northern Beaches. I like the Double Deck B1 buses that run up the Northern Beaches and I am sad that apart from B1, 607X and 611X, there seems to be little desire to run more. Partly this is due to the technical constraints of running very tall buses under things like low bridges but mostly this has to do with a lack in investment in hardware. This is exactly what you should expect from vampire capital companies like Keolis Downer and Transit Systems.

One of the unique technical problems that the Brisbane metropolitan area has is that it is really a series of connected swamps with pockets of harder land that they've built a city on top of. I imagine that unlike Sydney which is mostly sandstone, or other cities like London which is clay, that Brisbane's swampy and boggy terrain would make building massive amounts of underground railway difficult. The line to Brisbane Airport for instance, is built atop pillars and kind of exists on top of viaducts. Admittedly Queensland uses 3'6" narrow gauge as opposed to 4'8½" standard gauge, which does mean that trains are narrower but that still doesn't change the ground over which the infrastructure runs. 

Maybe it's just the marketing which offends the nerds and anoraks, or maybe it's something deeper? I have no idea if there is a kind of turf war between the gunzels and the bunzels, or even if in Sydney we have funzels, but I imagine that if there is, then it's like a Jets and Sharks type thing from West Side Story. Maybe the gunzels need to stand around getting angry at things, while they stand around in their anoraks or else they freeze to death... even in Brisbane where if the temperature drops below 25°C, the gunzels and bunzels need to throw on an extra coat.

In theory, I can see no reason why I shouldn't like double-bendy-buses. The mere fact that they've stuck a name (Metro) which exists in other cities as the branding for high frequency single deck robot trains is irrelevant. A rose by any other name does smell as sweet. There really is no reason why a metropolitan bus line that runs into the suburbs of the metropolis shouldn't be called a "Metro".

And here's the really ironic thing. Before the Sydney Metro there was the Sydney Metrobus. Again, before Gladys decided to sell all of the buses to her criminal mates (and she was never charged with corruption even in the face of the ICAC ruling), there were many Metrobus lines in Sydney, operating to a 7 minute frequency in some cases. 

Maybe it's just the hard core gunzels but I do not understand what is so bad about giving people more options to get around. As someone who could in theory be a bunzel, gunzel, funzel, and munzel all in the same trip to work, I like having loads of intermodal connections. I hope they expand the Brisbane Metro and have it go to lots more places like the airport, the Ekka, and lots more besides. Good luck to it.

Horse 3474 - The Voice Of America Falls Silent

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/business/media/us-china-russia-global-communications.html

America’s rivals celebrated as the Trump administration set out to dismantle its global influence and information infrastructure, including the media outlets that had helped market the United States as the world’s moral and cultural authority.

The editor in chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, crowed about President Trump’s “awesome decision” to shut down Voice of America, the federally funded network that reports in countries with limited press freedom. “Today is a holiday for me and my colleagues!”

- New York Times, 24th Jun 2025

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/19/chinese-state-media-revel-in-demise-of-voice-of-america-radio-free-asia

Nury Vittachi, a Hong Kong-based writer who has written for state-run outlets, including China Daily, also welcomed the demise of the “US propaganda operatives”.

“These groups issue ‘news’ in 62 languages to influence the minds of 350 million people around the world to take a pro-American slant – and poison people’s minds against Chinese, Russians, Iranians, and other people Washington sees as rivals or ‘adversaries’,” Vittachi said on X.

- Al Jazeera, 19th Jun 2025

It must be stated that I do not live in the United States. As such, I watch American politics as nothing more than a football match of two rival teams, who are mostly evil and incompetent. In the long run, I don't care who wins because the labels that Americans use to describe their political football teams are ultimately meaningless. There are no 'liberals'; there is just a distorted orthodoxy. There are no 'conservatives'; there is just another distorted orthodoxy.

I honestly couldn't give an iota about the idiotic rainbow washing or patriotism, or whatever other else kind of pathetic virtue signalling comes out of either side. Neither do I believe that there even is a 'left' or 'right' in American politics; with there just being a libertarian right and an authoritarian right, with differing amounts of cosplay.

Having said that, I do like various radio programs which come from NPR such as the NPR Politics Podcast, Planet Money, This American Life, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me &c. and while I can listen to them as podcasts, I actually end up listening to things as broadcasts on ABC News Radio.

As someone who lives in the shadows of Empire, very big radio networks like the BBC World Service, Voice Of America, and Deutsche Welle, are regularly heard in this part of the world. 

As one of the consequences of Mr Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" is to not only defund NPR and Voice Of America but punitively claw back more than $2bn in previous years' funding, it might have the secondary and likely desired effect of destroying public media in the United States. Now clearly the United States has abandoned the project of actually bothering to give a cuss about promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty to themselves and their Posterity, but it seems to also want to make itself a smaller and tinier player on the world stage.

Other radio networks such as Xinhua and Russia Today, would be looking at the vacation of NPR and Voice Of America's radio spaces across the Asia Pacific region with absolute glee. No longer will the United States bother to project soft power via its broadcast media. No longer will the United States be bothered to make its own voice heard. What that means is that the radio spaces are free to be taken over and more importantly for networks like Xinhua and Russia Today, they can speak into the void left behind.

Voice Of America ultimately grew out of the US Forces Network following WW2. NPR and PBS were melded in the heat of the cold war when it was decided, especially during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations that it was a good idea to fight communism by having an American version of the BBC World Service. Of course the irony that public media is public, infuriated the Nixon administration, but the people saw the value in truth telling when Nixon was being questioned during Watergate. Truth however is no longer a concern to the American people, whom it seems are prepared to believe actual nonsense.

In the twenty-first century after a very successful campaign by the authoritarian right to make the people drink from the poisoned waters of lies and nonsense, we finally have an administration who looks prepared to punish and destroy its rival all costs, including the cost of American supremacy in other places. This policy as far as I can tell, will likely have the same kind of effect as General Motors' policy of killing off Right Hand Drive cars as well as selling off its European subsidiaries. General Motors went from being market leader in 29 countries, to non-existent in less than two years. The Trump Administration obviously thinks that this is a Big Beautiful outcome.

Peace through strength. Strength through joy. Making America Great Again by degrading it. Winning through surrender.