Was John a bad King?

Loss of continental lands (Normandy)
1. Reputation of lustful and idle, left Issabella of Gloucester of 11 years for young Isabella of Angouleme
  1. This treatment of the Lusignans alerted barons on both sides of the chanel.
2. By forcing mercenary troops on people of Normandy he made ir easier for them to prefer alternative lordship.
  1. They took the positions that the political elite thought belonged to them and mistreated non combatments. EG Lupescar pillaged and throated barons as though they were on enemy teritiory
  2. "failure to recognise that the justified grievances of his barons were the basic problem" Warren
3. Unlucky, 4th crusade meant John couldn't form an anti Capetian alliance with people such as the Counts of Flanders and Boulogne
4. Had to contend with the legendary faithfulness of the Poituven barons, once Eleanor died in 1204 they rebelled, and her death meant Philip no longer faced an obstacle trying to get Southern territories of Angevin Empire
5. "unenthusiastic behaviour from the Norman baronage" Painter
6. Angevin rule in Normandy was indeed already a guttering candle when John came to the throne" Seel
7. Gillingham "inadequacy of leadership" "incorrigible idleness" "soft sword" Goulet
Submission/ Interdict
1. John's income from the interdict amounted to 20,000 a year, 3x raised for Saladin tithe - a good financial King
  1. Exploited vacant bishoprics, he played on the rivalries between Langton, Panduf and Innocent to get initial demand for 100,000 marks down to 40,000 over 6 months and got support against rebellious barons and Philip
2. "Not a shred of evidence that any lay person protested, not a mouse squeaked" Gillingham
3. Forced to accept Langton, no authority over the church. After the submission there was more interaction between Church and Papacy than ever before
  1. Despite this in the next 6 elections his nominees were elected in all after 1213
4. John was clever, by submitting he turned his stern opponent to a benevolent protector against Philip Augustus.
5. "John's reward was now that he was in much favour in Rome@ Jones
Magna Carta
1. John was an untrustworthy King, causing the Magna Carta. Long term - rebelled against his father despite being the favourite son. He slept with baron's wives and daughter. Treatment of hostages EG Arthur. Former favourite William De Briouzes' wife and son were starved to death in prisom
  1. "John hated all men of wealth and power" Painter
2. Stubornness with the Lusignans gave Philip power in Le Goulet
3. Defeat at Bouvines 1214, Johns final campaign/chance to rescue lost territories
4. He wasn't a bad king, he was no different from his predecessors, oppression of the baronage was a trait common to the Angevin dynasty - seizure of lands to ensure royal authority had been used by Henry II. Hugh Bigod had his castle seized by the crown and was forced to pay £666 for its return
  1. OR, this was only acceptable in Henry's reign, John failed to realise he was ruling in a different context
  2. "Far better King that his brother or son - probably as good a one of his father" Painter

Nächster

Was John a bad King?

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von beckys99 vor mehr als 9 Jahre