[1/2]

I am not a historian, but I am a formal student of history with a measure of coursework relating to the High Middle Ages... since no one else has offered an answer, I can shed some light on the background of your question, although I fully welcome any subject matter experts to chime in. Most of my information will come from the lectures of a former professor, Dr. Arthur White of the ULL and his book, Plague & Pleasure: The Renaissance World of Pius II, which gives a fantastic overview of feudal culture in Western Europe during the High and Late Middle Ages. I will also draw info from The Crusades by Dr. Thomas Asbridge.

The liberties you mention were largely feudal customs of power-sharing and limitions of royal power that were a central part of feudal culture (most established in France and England). The era we are talking about is the High Middle Ages (1000~1300). This will be a very simplistic overview, but I'm giving you this background to understand the political climate in which the Magna Carta was written:

Think of feudal culture in the High Middle Ages as an oligarchy rather than a dictatorship. This is a culture of power sharing. A King’s practical political & military authority relied upon the loyalties of their vassals. In this era, Northwestern Europe in this era is very rural and localized society.

Kings were far from dictators and feudal customs of power sharing were seen as liberties by vassals; directly related to honor and cultural legitimacy. Feudalism in the HMA of the West was very intricate and formalized. And one of the fascinating things about the Magna Carta, as you pointed out, is that many of these political customs predate its creation in 1215.

A pervasive modernist myth of the Magna Carta is that it created the cultural idea of popular sovereignty in England... but it was actually an assertion of established feudal cultural traditions of the Middle Ages. The legendary status of the Magna Carta’s significance in English history is born during the English Civil War. The contemporaries of the Magna Carta would have viewed it as a written formality, like a peace agreement. Not some political “revolution” that fundamentally altered the political system (as it’s often portrayed)

A loose overview of the Feudal structure of the High Middles Ages, most pronounced in France:

• A King would grant a fief (land) to a vassal (a knight) in exchange for that vassal's pledge of fealty to the king. Pledges of fealty had many different aspects to them, but established tradition was a knight’s service in combat for 40 days a year (a significant reason why wars were so short in the feudal societies of the High Middle Ages). Pledges of fealty could also entail various taxes. A very important aspect of fealty is a vassal’s right to judgement of peers (rival nobles of an equal status) and representation in a council of said peers

• Generally, a king in the HMA of France or England couldn’t simply punish an unruly vassal by taking his land away at will... a council of the vassal's peers had to be convened where they could literally give council to the king on what course of action to take - this is where the idea of "court" comes from: official meetings to resolve disputes with the king or among rival peers. This is a strong culture of judgement of peers and formalized negotiations.... This era is the height of heraldry! Ya know, the art of how to formally introduce nobility and properly conducts feats, court proceedings, tournaments, and various other meetings, etc. Also note the legend of King Arthur & the Knights of the Round Table: His observance of customs regarding council, judgement of peers is a significant aspect of his legendary status as the ideal king and it highlights the egalitarian nature of feudalism. Arthur wasn’t a dictator,but rather “the first among equals”

• A King would receive oaths of fealty, and payments/gifts from a vassal when granted a fief. Likewise, the King would often be expected distribute gifts/payments/aides to vassals on special cultural occasions such as the knighting of an eldest son and the marriage of an eldest daughter, or emergencies such as ransom... These feudal relationships are quite complex with numerous responsibilities agreed to by both parties. This political culture is not simply one of "the king rules the land in the name of the people and we owe him our loyalty" Feudalism is not like centralized nationalism... The feudal system is a club of warlords and oligarchs, but they had a strong sense of honor and tradition. This made the relationships between King, vassal, and church act like a crude system of checks and balances

• High Justice was basically the ability to carry out the death penalty without the consent of the King. This varied widely across Europe (For example, maybe a Duke would have the right of High Justice, but not a Counte, or only for certain crimes). The Angevin Kings of England gradually diminished the right of High Justice for many vassals. This has the effect of gradually weakening individual Lords and strengthening royal authority in England.

• Feudalism was a system of land tenure, not outright indefinite land ownership like today. The land was the source of political power. A noble house ruled their land, but that land could theoretically be taken away by the king and given to another one of his vassals. This is why we use the term fief and not property. A lord's own personal property within his fief was his domain... but very importantly, a Lord's land was not necessarily his property and had to maintain a relationship with the king for legitimacy.

After the Norman conquest had firmly brought the feudal system into England in 1066, King William the Bastard had more authority and maintained a much more centralized government than in France or the HRE, especially for the Angevin dynasty under Henry II (King John's father). This is a strongly violent honor culture, but it’s also deeply diplomatic and formal. William the Bastard of Normandy and Henry II are often credited with formally entrenching and developing the unique nature feudal system in England. Several key developments gave the Angevin dynasty a much more direct role in the political affairs of England:

• William divided the fiefs of his vassals into parcels of land that were often not connected and spread out over various parts of the realm; to prevent the consolidation of large swaths of land under a single lord

• William constructed many castles across England that were staffed by a royal garrisons (not by a vassal)

• William was able to attain not just homage, but liege homage from most of his vassals. This greatly consolidated tenets of High Justice with the King, rather than his vassals. (This means in legal disputes between king and vassal, a vassal would be bound to side with the king rather than his peer). This is a key reason why England is so prevalent in the history of the HMA despite being much smaller and less populated than France or the HRE: England is much more politically unified.

• Ecclesiastical Church courts were significantly weakened in England under Henry II. He wanted to centralize the court system under royal authority and limit the right of High Justice among his vassals. He established many writs of law, which created out modern conception of legal precedent. Ever heard the old saying The punishment doesn't fit the crime? This is a feudal legacy of the Angevins: the idea of past sentencing guiding future sentencing.

The Big Picture: Feudalism is an often misunderstood concept, even for historians. This era is often misrepresented as chaotic. While it was violent, it was not chaotic: Feudal society was very FORMALIZED and LEGALISTIC. This constant struggle between lord, vassal, peer, and church acted as a crude system of checks and balances on autocratic authority. In the words of Dr. White “These vassals go to war with each other all the time, but they go to court before going to war” So many political and legal traditions that have come to define Western culture are born in this era: established limitations of authority (jurisdiction), property rights, judgment of peers (juries), right to council (formalized legal proceedings), separation of criminal & civil law, and various other litigious traditions such as legal precedent, grand juries, presumption of innocence, and even the idea of separation of powers itself.......These deeply-rooted cultural traditions of feudalism lay the foundations of political culture in the West; including the idea of Popular Sovereignty itself: The idea that LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY COMES FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED takes root in High Feudal Culture..... This feudal “social contract” is reason why so many modern countries of Western Europe adopted democratic liberalism and civil liberties much easier than societies that did not share in this deeply unique feudal history of the West (such as Russia and Middle Eastern tribal societies).

Political Power in this era is much less centralized than portrayed in pop culture... (in fact, just how fragile and unstable these feudal relationships could be is a unique theme of the show Game of Thrones.)

This is a very simplistic overview of the feudal nature of government in England during the HMa. My next post will deal in more specific details of King John's reign and his drastic actions to undermine this culture and consolidate royal authority even more (and its resistance by many vassals) that results a rather chaotic period with the creation of the Magna Carta.