Comment by dralley
7 months ago
It's not an original so much as an official copy. The copies, dated 1300, were created 85 years after the signing of the original Magna Carta in 1215.
Although I suppose the argument is that if you re-affirm the same text several times, that each one is legitimate.
>First issued in 1215, it put into writing a set of concessions won by rebellious barons from a recalcitrant King John of England — or Bad King John, as he became known in folklore.
>He later revoked the charter, but his son, Henry III, issued amended versions, the last one in 1225, and Henry’s son, Edward I, in turn confirmed the 1225 version in 1297 and again in 1300.
But still, it would be weird to say that a copy of the Constitution produced during the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln and re-affirmed by the govt was "an original" even if it otherwise had pedigree.
Came here to understand exactly this point. It made no sense to me that a document created in 1215 would have a copy made in 1300 that was referred to as an original.
"Original copy?"
"genuine replica"
whatever, umm, "sanctioned forgery" but exactly how is it a "copy", as the Magna Carta was hand written, with 4 signed copys still in existance today. the item under discussion was created 85 years after the magna carta, and presumably, everyone who was involved with the original, was dead so this thing is just old, but has no direct connection, it's even listed as an "amended version" of the actual original document, which means of course that some ancient controversy and disagreement, is lurking for our perusal and picking sides