Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Magna Carta had not been written in the year 1215? Well, according to a large percentage of historians, we probably couldn't even vote, or we would be at war, or women might not take part in any significant roles aside from wives in our current society. What is certain is that the Magna Carta was undoubtedly an advanced thought at the time it was written by King John as it certified the death of despotism in England. Even if it did not mean the end of evil, it represented a further step in a broader and more cutting-edge perspective of human rights. As a result, this event has had a tremendous impact on the earth throughout history: “Social scientists and legal scholars routinely describe the Magna Carta as foundational to the concepts of justice and freedom. The Magna Carta was the product of times very different from our own, yet it continues to be cited by jurists and human rights activists around the world." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay The mind-blowing purpose covered in this paper has been brilliant throughout history, for example, for those who advocated a parliamentary monarchy, the Whigs. However, those who defended the traditional conservative system, the Tories, were not at all satisfied with this proposal when William I invaded England and imposed parliamentary monarchy. However, what would have been the consequences if William I had not arrived in the country and imposed the already mentioned system? Taking this into account, my aim in this essay is also to examine through various articles the simulation of what would have happened if Whigs and Tories had been forced to debate what was the best political system to establish at the time (XVII and 18th century). centuries) regarding the high level of relevance of the Magna Carta. To begin with, what exactly was the importance of the Magna Carta after the Glorious Revolution (c. 1688) to the development of the rivalry between Whigs and Tories? To be precise, “While Magna Carta would become an important symbol for parliamentary reformers in the late 18th century, it was in the decades immediately following the Glorious Revolution (1688) that the framework was established in which Magna Carta would emerge as an integral part of reformist propaganda. The powerful public authority that Magna Carta had achieved as a symbolic document in the 18th and 19th centuries is evident in its almost ubiquitous visual representation in political cartoons and caricatures of the period,” meaning that parliamentary reformers would spread their ideology through of a perfect instrument, the Great Charter. Again: “However, the Magna Carta has endured and has become an important tool in political debates over the ability of parliament to alter basic laws. As Anne Pallister has argued, once “the implications of the Revolution Settlement for individual liberty became apparent, the Charter re-emerged once again as a weapon to be used against the new tyranny of a class-dominated sovereign parliament.” and this is so because the Carta Magna was written with the aim of ensuring that the nation has the same rights and opportunities that the king had before the law. In relation to the last paragraph, the following article argues that the king should have been loyal and upright, otherwise he would not have been king "The challenge that Charles I prepared to launch to his accusers on 22 January 1649 had influenced the thinking of generations of historians. "No earthly power can rightly call me, who am your king, into questionlike a criminal", he proclaimed, determining that "the king can do no wrong", a maxim which "protects every English monarch, even the least deserving". This means that the king, since he had promised to be faithful to the people, could not cause any pain. However, this was not always the case, as throughout history monarchs, feeling total control of the lands, have constantly taken advantage of and abused their power and so on the nation was easy enough to believe) was that although “the king was under no one, he was under God and the law; for the law makes (SIC) the king. Furthermore, conservatives would add the following idea: “He could do no wrong ; because if it was wrong, he didn't do it, he couldn't do it; void in the act, punishable in his agent" which from my point of view means that whatever he did could not be wrong or condemned as it was dictated by God and by the mind of the “chosen one” (in the sense of being responsible for the good of his community). These claims were not so convincing to Whigs, who, as a result of the previous claims, would claim that making illogical claims is not the solution; instead they would prefer a more just system of government. This is where the Magna Carta comes into play: “The Magna Carta also obliged the King to recognize and respect the primacy of the law.” Moreover, other researchers had already underlined it, just two years earlier: “English kings cannot command bad or illegal things. When they speak, even if by Letters Patent, if the thing is bad, those Letters Patent are null and void. a strong argument supported by the Great Charter of 1215. Nonetheless, the conservatives rejected this proposal since for them a sincere monarch was someone always capable of improving the lives of the people of the region. Taking this into account, they would add that not all English monarchs had been counterproductive, with the evidence of Alfred the Great “King Alfred understood that the law worked equally for all people. In response Edmund Burke reserved Sir Edward Coke's continuity narrative to defend the monarchy – he argued that the monarch, as well as the people, have certain privileges” (Price 24). Therefore, he is believed to be the first successful king in the history of England, defending Wessex from Viking raids and creating a court school that encouraged the vital teachings of the era (c. 9th century). What is surprising here is that even conservatives would defend the Magna Carta to help them get more votes “And it wasn't just the government's opponents who invoked it. Loyalist propagandists argued that only a strong monarch and an elite parliament could defend the “constitution” and “principles” of 1215.” Once again, living proof of the meaning of this letter. At this point, we have already discussed a bit about the relevance of the Magna Carta in 17th and 18th century England, but what about other English-speaking regions? Was its importance also present in other countries? To be precise, not only did the English people rely on the law that dictated the Magna Carta, but also in some American colonies “The colonies themselves were generally willing to adopt English common law and English legal practices. When dissatisfied with the government of their colony, they often attempted to redress their grievances by appealing to the rights of the English, including those they believed were enshrined in Magna Carta. William Penn, the first owner of the colony of Pennsylvania, successfully appealed to Magna Carta. In 1687 he organized the first printing in America of the 1225 version of the Magna Carta and also its confirmation in 1297. which clearly demonstrates his importance abroad. On the other hand, occasionally, the.