Magna Charta Clauses Against The Jew

I found these two clauses in the Magna Charta that is only in the original and were later removed. I have read translations of the Magna Charta a few times over the years so despite reading this constitution a few times I did not know of these protections of widows and children from the exploitation of Yiddish Bankers until coming across the source web page recently.

English Translation:

10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, dies before that loan can be repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective from whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into our hands, we will take nothing except the principal sum mentioned in the bond.

11. And if any one die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left underage, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased. The debt shall be paid out of the residue, save the service due to feudal lords. Let debts due to others than Jews be dealt with in similar manner.

Source: https://magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/index.htm

Latin Original

10. Si quis mutuo ceperit aliquid a Judeis, plus vel minus, et moriatur antequam debitum illud solvatur, debitum non usuret quamdiu heres fuerit infra etatem, de quocumque teneat; et si debitum illud inciderit in manus nostras, nos non capiemus nisi catallum contentum in carta.

11. Et si quis moriatur, et debitum debeat Judeis, uxor ejus habeat dotem suam, et nichil reddat de debito illo, et si liberi ipsius defuncti qui fuerint infra etatem remanserint, provideantur eis necessaria secundum tenementum quod fuerit defuncti et de residuo solvatur debitum, salvo servicio dominorum; simili modo fiat de debitis que debentur aliis quaim Judeis.

Source: https://magnacartaplus.org/magnacarta/latin.htm

Clause 10

Assuming from long standing legal customs of private property the heir could not touch the lands inherited until of age; it is logical to assert that the dispossesion of children of their inheritance from usury was so common and severe that the authors of the Magna Charta inserted this clause to protect inherited lands from being confiscated due to debt that a child, not capable of earning an income, could repay before becoming of age. The child could not without the action of a guardian/represenative ("whom he holds his lands"), transfer income to pay the interest or a principal. Iam surmising a young child would lose everything because by the time he was of age the interest had far exceeded the debt because the lost father's income paid the interest and hopefully pecked away at the principal. So without a suitable and competant guardian/represenative the interest would be unpayable and the legacy of his father's land left to him was taken by the Yiddish loan sharks. The mention of a bond infers that the buying and selling of debt, today called a security, was a financial device back then.

Clause 11

In the same spirit of the above clause. A dower defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition is:

"1. The portion of a deceased husband's estate which the law allows to his widow for her life. tenant in dower , the widow who thus holds land. † lady of dower , dowager lady."

The root word of dowry. So not only were children being dispossed of their inheritance so were widows of their dowry. The question I have is what was happening that the "necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased" was neccessary? In other words it says that they were provided for to keep their land holdings so that dirty usury sharks did not confiscate their inheritace while they were powerless to prevent it, or maintain the interest, pay off the principal, etc. The debt became still and left for when the inheriter was capable to handle it. Unless a widow then the usury shark was shite out of luck.

Another easy inference is that with large land holdings and/or large debts the holders were being poisoned off and expertly to avoid the direct accusation and proof of, and the usury sharks were collecting a disturbing amount of wealth and land off this practice. Land espically since it was the responsibility of the fuedal lords.

A Few Long Decades Later

A few long decades later and King Edward I, Longshanks of the movie Braveheart fame, expelled the usury sharks in 1290 which according to the University of Oxford numbered only 3000 and came with William The Conqueror in 1066 AD. He did not expel them out of the blue either, he gave warning through decree in 1275 stating they could not loan money, and the same as their conversos brethern centuries later, they would not straighten their behaviour.

In between 1066 and 1215 a very small number of Yiddish caused so much damage that two clauses were inserted and out of 63 clauses these clauses are high up at number 10 and 11, in a new Constitution. Their position and the economic significance says these were major factors to when their was too many factors to not force action, of a new contract between King And Subject. What is lauded as a pivotal shift, in Constitutions, was partly caused by a few dirty Yiddish usury sharks, which could not play nice and by the rules and then had to be expelled 75 years later. How many millions where in Britain at the time that only 3000 simians so destructive they were a major factor in setting a new course for Brittania and the world at large?

Another nail in the coffin that the Jew is redeemable. Or had been persecuted without just cause because the world supposedly randomly persecutes them. One of the most famous Constitutions in the history of the world clearly shows their guilt and the extent of their criminality.