Xenatia
September 24th, 2004, 11:58 am
Few Kings have left behind them such an unfortunate reputation as King John. The only King so appalling that no other English monarch in history has shared his name. Today, most people who aren’t chiefly interested in history only know of him through his malicious exploits from the Robin Hood fables and movies, which have tainted him in the mainstream of people’s eyes as a ‘bad man’. It was said that after his death, he haunted and ravished the country in the form of a werewolf. He is regarded as a monarchical monster but we must be told or reminded that the only reason King John is remembered like this is because he rubbed the wrong people the wrong way, the Papacy. He fought with France and even his Barons, who thrashed him into submission with the signing of Magna Carta. But John had a lot to live up to thanks to his father’s and brother Richard’s inflated reputation.
The loss of the Plantagenet lands in France marked the fall of the Angevine Empire that Henry II was so careful to build, and destruction is mostly blamed on King John. Although it can be said that John was a good politician, he indeed demonstrated foolish politics in regard to the variance in France. But what needs to be stated is the large yet insignificant part John played in the lead-up to the encounter. John got the brunt of the blame as the instigator by marrying one of his vassal’s fiancé, Hugh De Brown. Hugh, not being compensated for his loss, then pleaded to King Phillip II of France to intervene. Phillip set forth a trial for John who refused to attend; instead he continued to dispute with Hugh. Phillip, then fed up with the harassment of his men, demanded (along with his nobles) that John should present himself in Paris to explain his actions. John refused again resulting in the nobles of France holding a court discussion regarding the English King- “At length the French court assembled and judged that the King of England should be deprived of all his lands which he and his predecessors had held from the French King, because they had done scarcely any service owed for a long time, and had refused to obey their lord*.” (Quote from: Ralph of Coggeshall)
Therefore, John is thought to have been the cause of the downfall of British land ownership in France, this is not true. Phillip II was known for his ambition to regain all lands occupied by the English crown. He in fact was the mastermind behind the fall of the Angevine Empire, not John or his older brother Richard, though the French King used and manipulated them, especially Richard in his early days. Years before John’s time in power, Phillip had been turning the Royal family against each other. John was merely an excuse for war and a victim of French nationalism.
One of the most memorable events during the reign of King John was his clash with Pope Innocent III. With the death of Walter Hubert who was the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps trying to demonstrate his papal power to John, Innocent declined John’s candidate for the said position. John thinking the King should be Head of all departments of state*, believed in the traditional rights of the English Crown in Episcopal*, defied the Popes decision to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop. But John cannot be blamed entirely for his decision as “The King, led on by evil counsellors, refused to consent.” (Quote from: The Chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury), so the decision was influenced and not wholly his own. The monks of Canterbury accepted the Pope’s decision despite the refusal of their candidate; they told John they would never defy Langton or the Pope. Saying this, the monks were dismissed by the King and their goods confiscated. John’s decision to disobey the Pope may have had something to do with his stubbornness in his belief of the King’s divine rights and his will to be yielded to by all. Negotiations between the King and the Pope broke down resulting with an Interdict* being placed over England, preventing the administration of sacraments and certain church rites to take place on English soil. Placing the Interdict, the Pope not realising how ineffective such a thing would be on John’s conscience, the King further victimised the Clergy by expelling all monks, seized all goods from churches and privately owned belongings of the clergy, and “Impressed heavy taxes on their lands and resources.” (Quote from: The Life and Times of King John). To prevent John from continuing down his current path Innocent threatened Excommunication* (cast out of Christian community), this only hardened John’s resolve, ensuing him to exact money from the Jews of England.
John eventually made peace with the Pope. John accepted Langton as Archbishop, reinstated all exiled Clergy and compensated the Church for its losses. But it must be mentioned that John only reconciled himself with the Pope because of rebellion from various Barons. In theory, Excommunication releases Vassals* from their oaths of fealty to their Lords. A rebellion did not occur till 1212, three years after he was excommunicated. During his quarrel with Innocent, John amassed approximately 100’000 pounds from the church alone; he also succeeded in his aim to obtain the Papacy as a firm ally in his fight against his Barons and the King of France. He in addition, conducted highly successful expeditions to Ireland, Scotland and Wales. “There was now no one in Ireland, Scotland or Wales who did not bow to his nod, a situation which, as is well known, none of his predecessors had achieved.” (Quote from: The Anonymous Barnwell Chronicler).
Although Magna Carta is only individual freedoms for the Barons and Noblemen in England, it was still an establishment of some sort of common law. It was the late 12th centuries government and relieved the King from being the seat of administration. But the King didn’t loose all his rights of kingship; the Nobles just had the ability to judge him, the King could not simply do as he pleased without the consent of his Barons. The “Government of England had to be accountable to the sovereignty of the law” (A History of Britain, 2002), which means the “King could be brought to book for violating it (the law)” (A History of Britain, 2002). The problem with John was his inability to deal with individuals, perhaps because of his childhood memories of his father’s betrayal from his best friend Thomas A’Beckett, or his parent’s constant hostilities, and his family’s fratricidal struggles inflicted on him a lack of trust in others at a young age that lasted into adulthood. This would explain John’s treatment of people, especially his Barons: “John assuming disloyalty ended up guaranteeing it. Blackmail and extortion, threats to Barons instead of promises” (A History of Britain, 2002).
Since John wholly believed in the King’s absoluteness he pressed his position harder upon people than would be wise. He expected his every will and whim to be carried out unquestioned and had little time for people who failed to follow out his orders. When John passed laws he was there to enforce them, this had not happened during Richard I’s rule when Barons and Nobles had free reign over England, which could explain the Barons reluctance of John’s firm ruling. “The fact alone that John, unlike his predecessors on the throne, spent most of his time in England made his rule more oppressive.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropodia Volume 10, 1984)
After making peace with the Pope, John then began to administer the re-conquering of his lost French provinces. During Johns reign there is no doubt that he mistreated his Barons, but so did plenty of other medieval Kings. Lands were stolen, heirs disappeared, money demanded, Nobles were thrown in prisons unjustly without reason, but this had been happening for years to the peasants. Why should the Barons suddenly start to care now? Possibly because of the Kings infinite power these things were now happening to them. From his military campaigns to other parts of the British Isles John had demanded military service or ‘scutage’ constantly approximately for five years, the Barons were now starting to fell the full weight from their services to John. Now with John demanding more military service and scutage from his Barons, the question was raised among them: “how many times a year can the King command this?”
The Barons then revolted (the majority of the Barons were from the North) and civil war broke out. They ended up cornering him in London were John was forced to sign Magna Carta reluctantly. The laws contained within its pages were beneficial to only the Noblemen of England but laid the basis for English constitutional liberties, and ensured that the King was beneath the law, not greater than it.
King John had a lot of opposition and dealt with it well, after all, his reign lasted 17 years. He held together his bickering dominions under pressure from the French and the Papacy. He contributed to the loss of the Angevine provinces in France, he quarrelled with the Pope and his abuse of Royal and Feudal privileges lead to the signing of Magna Carta. John was only unpopular because he inherited a poor country that was used to being well financed, and had to fix the depleted treasury left by Richard I. It would be unfair to judge him from what the monastic chroniclers have written, because their writings are based on rumours and gossip aimed at a Monarch whom estranged the Church and dismissed the clergy. King John was a stubborn man who lacked a level head, but was in no way a tyrant King. He was a clever man who simply was not endowed with good diplomacy or people skills.
Bibliography:
W. L. Warren, 1978, King John, Eyre Methuen, London.
A. L. Poole, 1955, The Oxford History of England: From doomsday Book to Magna Carta 1087- 1216, Oxford University Press, Ely House, London.
J. Dahmus, 1967, Seven Medieval Kings, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London.
M. Ashley, 1972, The Life and Times of King John, Wiedenfeld and Nicolson Ltd, London.
R. Bartlett, 2001, Medieval Panorama, Thames and Hudson, London.
Collins Dictionary: British History, 2002, HarperCollins Publishers, Great Britain, pp 252- 253, 239, 286, 379.
Dictionary of World History, 1994, Chambers, Great Britain, pp 795-796, 574, 87, 482, 453.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropodia, 1984, Hemingway Benton, 15th Edition, Volume 10, pp 236-238.
Encarta Encyclopaedia Deluxe, [CD-ROM], 2000, Microsoft, Lernout and Hauspie Speech Products N. V., America.
A History of Britain, [Video], 2002, BBC Worldwide Ltd, England.
Footnotes
*Nobles of this era were required to pay homage to their Kings in return for the lands they held.
*Before King Johns reign and up to Queen Elizabeth I, monarchs had no influence in religious matters and were not considered head of the church.
*Episcopal is the appointment of Bishops.
*An Interdict is the ban of clergy performing all religious services by the Pope.
*Excommunication is the exclusion from the Catholic Church.
*A Vassal can be compared to a Page in a Knight/Page relationship.
I thought that this would be a good topic for discussion as King John is only recognised as the tyrannical King associated with the Robin Hood legends. I gave all my sources a good bash as you can see from my bibliography and I had a whole four hours of nothing to do with a topic I've always found interesting stuck in my head. But if you know a thing or two about early Medieval History, he is still misinterpreted as a bad man, politician and monarch which I think is unfair. By reading my eesay I hope that you have learned a little more about his circumstances, his history and seperate him from the imgae that has been set in stone by so many Robin Hood stories. Please reply to discuss or ask questions, I would love to hear your opinions. I would also be happy to refer you to websites for further reading. I hope you found this an interesting read!
Luv @lways
Xenatia
The loss of the Plantagenet lands in France marked the fall of the Angevine Empire that Henry II was so careful to build, and destruction is mostly blamed on King John. Although it can be said that John was a good politician, he indeed demonstrated foolish politics in regard to the variance in France. But what needs to be stated is the large yet insignificant part John played in the lead-up to the encounter. John got the brunt of the blame as the instigator by marrying one of his vassal’s fiancé, Hugh De Brown. Hugh, not being compensated for his loss, then pleaded to King Phillip II of France to intervene. Phillip set forth a trial for John who refused to attend; instead he continued to dispute with Hugh. Phillip, then fed up with the harassment of his men, demanded (along with his nobles) that John should present himself in Paris to explain his actions. John refused again resulting in the nobles of France holding a court discussion regarding the English King- “At length the French court assembled and judged that the King of England should be deprived of all his lands which he and his predecessors had held from the French King, because they had done scarcely any service owed for a long time, and had refused to obey their lord*.” (Quote from: Ralph of Coggeshall)
Therefore, John is thought to have been the cause of the downfall of British land ownership in France, this is not true. Phillip II was known for his ambition to regain all lands occupied by the English crown. He in fact was the mastermind behind the fall of the Angevine Empire, not John or his older brother Richard, though the French King used and manipulated them, especially Richard in his early days. Years before John’s time in power, Phillip had been turning the Royal family against each other. John was merely an excuse for war and a victim of French nationalism.
One of the most memorable events during the reign of King John was his clash with Pope Innocent III. With the death of Walter Hubert who was the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps trying to demonstrate his papal power to John, Innocent declined John’s candidate for the said position. John thinking the King should be Head of all departments of state*, believed in the traditional rights of the English Crown in Episcopal*, defied the Popes decision to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop. But John cannot be blamed entirely for his decision as “The King, led on by evil counsellors, refused to consent.” (Quote from: The Chronicle of Gervase of Canterbury), so the decision was influenced and not wholly his own. The monks of Canterbury accepted the Pope’s decision despite the refusal of their candidate; they told John they would never defy Langton or the Pope. Saying this, the monks were dismissed by the King and their goods confiscated. John’s decision to disobey the Pope may have had something to do with his stubbornness in his belief of the King’s divine rights and his will to be yielded to by all. Negotiations between the King and the Pope broke down resulting with an Interdict* being placed over England, preventing the administration of sacraments and certain church rites to take place on English soil. Placing the Interdict, the Pope not realising how ineffective such a thing would be on John’s conscience, the King further victimised the Clergy by expelling all monks, seized all goods from churches and privately owned belongings of the clergy, and “Impressed heavy taxes on their lands and resources.” (Quote from: The Life and Times of King John). To prevent John from continuing down his current path Innocent threatened Excommunication* (cast out of Christian community), this only hardened John’s resolve, ensuing him to exact money from the Jews of England.
John eventually made peace with the Pope. John accepted Langton as Archbishop, reinstated all exiled Clergy and compensated the Church for its losses. But it must be mentioned that John only reconciled himself with the Pope because of rebellion from various Barons. In theory, Excommunication releases Vassals* from their oaths of fealty to their Lords. A rebellion did not occur till 1212, three years after he was excommunicated. During his quarrel with Innocent, John amassed approximately 100’000 pounds from the church alone; he also succeeded in his aim to obtain the Papacy as a firm ally in his fight against his Barons and the King of France. He in addition, conducted highly successful expeditions to Ireland, Scotland and Wales. “There was now no one in Ireland, Scotland or Wales who did not bow to his nod, a situation which, as is well known, none of his predecessors had achieved.” (Quote from: The Anonymous Barnwell Chronicler).
Although Magna Carta is only individual freedoms for the Barons and Noblemen in England, it was still an establishment of some sort of common law. It was the late 12th centuries government and relieved the King from being the seat of administration. But the King didn’t loose all his rights of kingship; the Nobles just had the ability to judge him, the King could not simply do as he pleased without the consent of his Barons. The “Government of England had to be accountable to the sovereignty of the law” (A History of Britain, 2002), which means the “King could be brought to book for violating it (the law)” (A History of Britain, 2002). The problem with John was his inability to deal with individuals, perhaps because of his childhood memories of his father’s betrayal from his best friend Thomas A’Beckett, or his parent’s constant hostilities, and his family’s fratricidal struggles inflicted on him a lack of trust in others at a young age that lasted into adulthood. This would explain John’s treatment of people, especially his Barons: “John assuming disloyalty ended up guaranteeing it. Blackmail and extortion, threats to Barons instead of promises” (A History of Britain, 2002).
Since John wholly believed in the King’s absoluteness he pressed his position harder upon people than would be wise. He expected his every will and whim to be carried out unquestioned and had little time for people who failed to follow out his orders. When John passed laws he was there to enforce them, this had not happened during Richard I’s rule when Barons and Nobles had free reign over England, which could explain the Barons reluctance of John’s firm ruling. “The fact alone that John, unlike his predecessors on the throne, spent most of his time in England made his rule more oppressive.” (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropodia Volume 10, 1984)
After making peace with the Pope, John then began to administer the re-conquering of his lost French provinces. During Johns reign there is no doubt that he mistreated his Barons, but so did plenty of other medieval Kings. Lands were stolen, heirs disappeared, money demanded, Nobles were thrown in prisons unjustly without reason, but this had been happening for years to the peasants. Why should the Barons suddenly start to care now? Possibly because of the Kings infinite power these things were now happening to them. From his military campaigns to other parts of the British Isles John had demanded military service or ‘scutage’ constantly approximately for five years, the Barons were now starting to fell the full weight from their services to John. Now with John demanding more military service and scutage from his Barons, the question was raised among them: “how many times a year can the King command this?”
The Barons then revolted (the majority of the Barons were from the North) and civil war broke out. They ended up cornering him in London were John was forced to sign Magna Carta reluctantly. The laws contained within its pages were beneficial to only the Noblemen of England but laid the basis for English constitutional liberties, and ensured that the King was beneath the law, not greater than it.
King John had a lot of opposition and dealt with it well, after all, his reign lasted 17 years. He held together his bickering dominions under pressure from the French and the Papacy. He contributed to the loss of the Angevine provinces in France, he quarrelled with the Pope and his abuse of Royal and Feudal privileges lead to the signing of Magna Carta. John was only unpopular because he inherited a poor country that was used to being well financed, and had to fix the depleted treasury left by Richard I. It would be unfair to judge him from what the monastic chroniclers have written, because their writings are based on rumours and gossip aimed at a Monarch whom estranged the Church and dismissed the clergy. King John was a stubborn man who lacked a level head, but was in no way a tyrant King. He was a clever man who simply was not endowed with good diplomacy or people skills.
Bibliography:
W. L. Warren, 1978, King John, Eyre Methuen, London.
A. L. Poole, 1955, The Oxford History of England: From doomsday Book to Magna Carta 1087- 1216, Oxford University Press, Ely House, London.
J. Dahmus, 1967, Seven Medieval Kings, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London.
M. Ashley, 1972, The Life and Times of King John, Wiedenfeld and Nicolson Ltd, London.
R. Bartlett, 2001, Medieval Panorama, Thames and Hudson, London.
Collins Dictionary: British History, 2002, HarperCollins Publishers, Great Britain, pp 252- 253, 239, 286, 379.
Dictionary of World History, 1994, Chambers, Great Britain, pp 795-796, 574, 87, 482, 453.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropodia, 1984, Hemingway Benton, 15th Edition, Volume 10, pp 236-238.
Encarta Encyclopaedia Deluxe, [CD-ROM], 2000, Microsoft, Lernout and Hauspie Speech Products N. V., America.
A History of Britain, [Video], 2002, BBC Worldwide Ltd, England.
Footnotes
*Nobles of this era were required to pay homage to their Kings in return for the lands they held.
*Before King Johns reign and up to Queen Elizabeth I, monarchs had no influence in religious matters and were not considered head of the church.
*Episcopal is the appointment of Bishops.
*An Interdict is the ban of clergy performing all religious services by the Pope.
*Excommunication is the exclusion from the Catholic Church.
*A Vassal can be compared to a Page in a Knight/Page relationship.
I thought that this would be a good topic for discussion as King John is only recognised as the tyrannical King associated with the Robin Hood legends. I gave all my sources a good bash as you can see from my bibliography and I had a whole four hours of nothing to do with a topic I've always found interesting stuck in my head. But if you know a thing or two about early Medieval History, he is still misinterpreted as a bad man, politician and monarch which I think is unfair. By reading my eesay I hope that you have learned a little more about his circumstances, his history and seperate him from the imgae that has been set in stone by so many Robin Hood stories. Please reply to discuss or ask questions, I would love to hear your opinions. I would also be happy to refer you to websites for further reading. I hope you found this an interesting read!
Luv @lways
Xenatia