What was the problem with Henry II's sons?

Were they just greedy idiots?
>Yeah, I am posed to inherit a giant kingdom, but I am willing to give half of it away to my supporters just so I can have it now...

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Henry II’s sons had the same bad traits that he had — wrathful and entitled/spoiled rotten beyond belief. That, and they had their beloved mother egging them on because she hated their father. You make a great point though; it had never even occurred to me. They were so powerhungry and impatient that they literally couldn’t even wait to inherit enormously wealthy tracts of lands and titles. Like seriously wtf WAS wrong with them?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why did Eleanor of Aquitaine hate him again? I couldn't find much from what I have read.

      If the second half of your post is sarcasm, my point is that they were not only risking the entire inheritance on a rebellion, but Henry the Younger was willing to give half of it away to others just to get it now.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        She was 10 years older than he was. She was his sugar mama and there's nothing older women hate more than their boytoys screwing around with younger women.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned., Henry was young and like this anon correctly understands.

        She was 10 years older than he was. She was his sugar mama and there's nothing older women hate more than their boytoys screwing around with younger women.

        She raised his children to hate him because her own heart was filled with hate too.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Eleanor hated Henry II because he fricked his side pieces like it was his day job, and she loathed how disrespectful that was to her as a woman of very high status. And no, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I promise! Henry II’s sons would even work with Philip Augustus, which says a lot about how much they hated their father.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >huge tracts of land and breasts

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Mom and Dad want to kill eachother whole childhood
    Good King John was the only sane person in the whole family, but Richard won his crusade due to French help so John got screwed out of taking the throne from a nut.

    Thankfully God rescued England by having Richard die in war before he produced an heir so John got the throne regardless.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I thought John was considered a bad king? I don’t really know much about him though.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Normies consider him bad but they can never mention one tyrannical act he did. He was unpopular in his time for cracking down on corrupt nobles and collecting owed taxes to rebuild the freasury after his family's vanity projects.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I heard that his acts of tyranny were overblown, but wasn’t he generally incompetent? Which is evident by his signing of the magma carta?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Guarantees rights for all Englishmen
            >English taught he's le bad
            Yeah like I said Good King John. The Sheriff of Nottingham did nothing wrong.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wasn’t he generally incompetent?
            Quite the opposite actually. Modern historians tend to acknowledge that King John was actually a rather excellent and energetic administrator. His brother, Richard, would just relegate the tasks and duties of rulership to nobles and statesmen because he had no interest in taking charge and doing these things himself. Ironically this was viewed as ‘good’ kingship, because the nobles of that era were extremely entitled and pushy. Ergo when a king who was actually interested in doing some of these things himself came along, he was villainized as a power-hungry tyrant for it.

            John is also scathingly documented by his enemies in that era for being explosively short-tempered, but this was a trait his brother and father before him both also had. The difference was that Henry II put together an enormous big dick kingdom that was extremely impressive, and Richard was a battlefield genius, so by comparison John did not have anything as impressive under his belt. His legacy became losing virtually all of the Angevin continental lands. The thing is, though, that this was inevitable. France was both richer and had a larger population, and the debts of King Richard’s reign were so abysmally enormous that had he not died like an arrogant fool in 1199, these would have come crashing down upon him during his own lifetime, and we likely would remember his reign very differently, as his mistakes would have caught up with him. He died at a very convenient time for his reputation.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            John literally murdered his own nephew in a drunken rage. Revisionism is moronic, he lost numerous lands for England and the CROWN specifically was far weaker after him than before. He was a failure. Simple.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >says John literally murdered his own nephew in a drunken rage
            >literally immediately after says revisionism is moronic
            Can’t make this stuff up. Anon, it is not know how Duke Arthur of Brittany died, and while it very likely was by John’s command, it is rather unlikely that it was by his own hand. Most historians do not agree to this, and reject it as a baseless (which it is) rumour meant to further unfairly damage John’s reputation and to paint him as a villain.

            You ought to keep in mind that William Marshall, one of John’s key advisors, whom we still today recognize as one of the best and most noble ‘good guy’ knights, had also basically recommended that Arthur be dispatched. His mother was a diehard French regime loyalist and he was well considered to be an insufferable little shit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >William Marshall
            , one of John’s key advisors, whom we still today recognize as one of the best and most noble ‘good guy’ knights,
            Doesn't mean he knew much about else. Being a good military leader =/= being a good king.
            Richard is a fine example.

            >it is not know how Duke Arthur of Brittany died, and while it very likely was by John’s command, it is rather unlikely that it was by his own hand.
            A distinction without a difference, if someone is on the business of the king harming them is equivalent to attacking the king. It's why israelites required 12 christian witnesses to counter 1 israeli witness in Henry II England, since they were "royal property"

            And him getting a bad reputation for ordering the murder of a teenager who is his kin isn't an oopsie. That's literally his fault directly. A PR disaster which his enemies used to take more lands of him and nobility used to ignore him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Doesn't mean he knew much about else. Being a good military leader =/= being a good king. Richard is a fine example.
            I’m not saying William Marshall was some kind of all-encompassing genius. My point was just that Arthur was not viewed positively by the upper leadership and nobility.
            >A distinction without a difference
            There is in fact a massive difference when making it sound like the act of his death was performed by John himself in a stumbling drunken stupor. This is again a baseless claim which characterizes John as needlessly cruel and out of control.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can believe John didn't do it, I can believe he did do it. We both know that we can't prove each other wrong. But it doesn't defend your argument to say he only ordered it. Is what i meant.

            By ordering it he still takes full responsibility. Does that clear my point up?

            Back to the main point of what John's reign achieved.

            Loss of Lands
            Loss of political rights of the crown
            Nation in Rebellion
            Leaving the kingdom in the hands of a child
            Oh yeah and Making England a fief of the Pope ????

            In what world could he be considered a good king?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You can believe John didn't do it, I can believe he did do it. We both know that we can't prove each other wrong. But it doesn't defend your argument to say he only ordered it. Is what i meant.
            Yes you can indeed decide to believe it, but you have fundamentally no proof. Meanwhile the most learned historians on the subject tend to dismiss what you baselessly believe. Consider that, anon.
            >By ordering it he still takes full responsibility. Does that clear my point up?
            Again we don’t even know if he ordered it. Likely as it is, we simply don’t know. All we can do is guess and ask, and making conjecture doesn’t help.
            >Loss of lands
            Again, it is possible that this would have happened to Richard after 1199 had he not gotten sniped. His enormous debt chickens were coming home to roost, and while he was an outstanding battlefield commander, France was both considerably more populous and increasingly more wealthy. These losses were more than likely only a matter of time.
            >Loss of political rights of the crown
            >Nation in Rebellion
            Indeed, but once more, we should keep in mind that this came from an opportunistic strike by an entitled and self-interested group which rebelled when John was off in France leading a campaign to take back the lost lands, which was fully and completely expected of him to do by basically every caste of English society.
            >Leaving the kingdom in the hands of a child
            omg how bad of him, dying of dysentery
            >Oh yeah and Making England a fief of the Pope ????
            This really didn’t mean or do all that much tbqh. In reality it was more just John pledging to adhere to Papal authority and more or less a promise that he wouldn’t oppose it again. This was actually a pretty shrewd move by him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, it is possible that this would have happened to Richard after 1199 had he not gotten sniped
            it already happened. Philip Augustus was shoring up his power while Richard was larping as a crusader

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes but Philip Augustus lost those attempts. By 1198 or so iirc, Richard had successfully taken back all of the lands that France had made a move on before Richard had returned from prison in the HRE after his departure from the Third Crusade. The thing is, Richard’s England was enormously in debt by 1199, and Philip Augustus’s France wasn’t. France was economically outpacing England, even without Aquitaine. Had Richard not been killed, it’s hard to say how much longer he would have continued to be successful, given how he only had his tactical wit to rely on.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >strike by an entitled and self-interested group which rebelled when John was off in France

            That was his fault by not building up loyalty and by taxing them heavily, somehow Richard didn't suffer such rebellions against his rule during his ventures . except by John who sided with Philip II.

            >Again, it is possible that this would have happened to Richard

            Doubtful, Richard was well respected and a keen military commander who had already trumped Philip II including reconquering Normandy.

            > This was actually a pretty shrewd move by him
            No it wasn't, it was weakness after he was put under interdict by the Pope.

            He challenged the Church and lost.
            He challenged his Nobility and lost.
            He challenged the French and lost.

            If a king would have done better by essentially not doing a bunch of things he tried that generally makes him a poor king.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Future english kings are John's descendants
            He won.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Kek.
            But not just its kings — it’s widely acknowledged by the best genealogical authorities that the last common mutual ancestor of ethnic English people and even for those throughout the isles more broadly is most likely either Edward I (John’s grandson) or Edward III (John’s great-great grandson). So it’s more than likely that pretty much literally everyone with English heritage - be it a full on Brexit geeza or someone in a country like Jamaica with a tidbit of English plantation-owner ancestry - is a descendant of King John, sometimes multiple times over.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >That was his fault by not building up loyalty and by taxing them heavily, somehow Richard didn't suffer such rebellions against his rule during his ventures . except by John who sided with Philip II.
            Anon, people don’t usually at out overnight. It takes build-up over time. Richard’s unprecedentedly massive taxation policies greatly angered the lesser nobility, but they didn’t take up arms right away. Again, Richard died before these chickens came home to roost, but they were in fact on their way. Dissent against him was bubbling throughout the 1190s as his enormous taxation policies continued to be deeply unpopular. And don’t forget that his battlefield commander genius made him a greatly revered and respected figure which people were thus willing to tolerate other downsides because of.
            >No it wasn't, it was weakness after he was put under interdict by the Pope.
            And this resulted in…? Nothing negative. It gave John the Pope’s complete backing.
            >He challenged the Church and lost.
            Yes, he ‘lost’ by courting the Pope’s favour. What a huge loss, anon!
            >He challenged his Nobility and lost.
            More like a certain contingent of England’s nobility challenged him. There were a lot of loyalists too. And John did not challenge them — it was they who struck first and who sneakily arose behind his back while he was away campaigning for the lost lands, which again, was something he was expected to do. Don’t frame this dishonestly.
            >He challenged the French and lost.
            No contest here. But like I said multiple times already, the odds were against John. Ralph Turner did a deep dive into comparing the economic situations of late 1190s and early 1200s England and France in the book I mentioned. I’m away from home right now but if this thread is still kicking on Monday I will find the tables and their accompanying paragraphs. Turner makes it pretty clear that the wars were France’s to win.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >If a king would have done better by essentially not doing a bunch of things he tried that generally makes him a poor king.
            not how it works. Sitting on his ass wasn't an option. Blame his idiot barons who subverted John. Bouvines was a well set up campaign as well. You can't win them all.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To add onto this, critics of John aren’t considering how the years of heavy taxation continued into his reign (as was necessary) and that in general, many were fed up with the personalities of the irritable and wrathful Angevin kings. It is in a way that the barons who revolted did so to a process rather than to just King John himself.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >John literally murdered his own nephew in a drunken rage
            On page 101 of his book 'King John: England's Evil King?', Ralph Turner states that King John explicitly ordered the death of his nephew Duke Arthur of Brittany, but that this decision was made by John only after consulting his closest counsellors about it first. “According to one chronicler, John had earlier aimed at mutilating Arthur — either blinding or castrating him — to make him incapable of exercising power; but the boy’s gaoler, Hubert de Burgh, refused to carry out such a cruel command.” Turner mentions that it is possible that Arthur’s death may very well have come by John’s own hand, but there is no way of knowing with any certainty (and he makes no mention whatsoever of any drunkenness). Most notably, Pope Innocent III was reportedly not even terribly upset by the news once it reached him in the spring of 1204, since “Arthur was a traitor to his sworn lord, captured while fighting against him, who could lawfully have been condemned to death.”

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            con’t from

            >wasn’t he generally incompetent?
            Quite the opposite actually. Modern historians tend to acknowledge that King John was actually a rather excellent and energetic administrator. His brother, Richard, would just relegate the tasks and duties of rulership to nobles and statesmen because he had no interest in taking charge and doing these things himself. Ironically this was viewed as ‘good’ kingship, because the nobles of that era were extremely entitled and pushy. Ergo when a king who was actually interested in doing some of these things himself came along, he was villainized as a power-hungry tyrant for it.

            John is also scathingly documented by his enemies in that era for being explosively short-tempered, but this was a trait his brother and father before him both also had. The difference was that Henry II put together an enormous big dick kingdom that was extremely impressive, and Richard was a battlefield genius, so by comparison John did not have anything as impressive under his belt. His legacy became losing virtually all of the Angevin continental lands. The thing is, though, that this was inevitable. France was both richer and had a larger population, and the debts of King Richard’s reign were so abysmally enormous that had he not died like an arrogant fool in 1199, these would have come crashing down upon him during his own lifetime, and we likely would remember his reign very differently, as his mistakes would have caught up with him. He died at a very convenient time for his reputation.

            John has been caricatured as a cartoony, moustache-twirling villain, but like this anon

            Normies consider him bad but they can never mention one tyrannical act he did. He was unpopular in his time for cracking down on corrupt nobles and collecting owed taxes to rebuild the freasury after his family's vanity projects.

            said, people often cannot even name a single bad thing he did. The lower nobility are somehow just excused for their sins and believed for their claims of John’s oppressiveness. The claims that he tried to rape their daughters were also very spurious and are actually quite dismissed by today’s historians, who tend to view these claims as the easiest and most convenient go-to way of mischaracterizing someone. There is no hard evidence that John was abnormally lustful.

            Meanwhile in reality the barons who pushed for the Magna Carta were an extremely entitled and completely self-interested group; despite what pop history has told us over centuries basically, they had absolutely no interest in anyone’s rights beyond their own. That the Magna Carta became the basis for English constitutionalism is basically just a coincidence, really. The barons opportunistically used John’s attempt to take back his formerly-controlled lands in France (which they as nobles expected of him) to betray him and war against him for their own desires. And his crime? Resisting their pushiness and wanting solely to reserve the rights that both his brother and father before him reigned with, which from his perspective, is completely fair. He felt that his reign as king should mean he would get to enjoy the same rights and privileges of the station as them, as well as all the other kings who reigned before them.

            As another quick note, John is characterized as incompetent (as you have mentioned) yet upon many occasions he actually showed rather decent and shrewd military leadership skills. Not only was the Siege of Rochester Castle widely viewed at the time as an ‘oh dayum!’ moment, but both in the 1190s and early 1200s John personally led some successful battles.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you justify him conspiring against Richard with Phillip, who at that point was King and fighting the good war against Saladin?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The same way Richard did — that he had also rebelled against the king not once but twice during his time as a realm prince. Philip Augustus was also a master of intrigue and was extremely manipulative. These two reasons are why Richard forgave John — because what he did was nothing especially heinous or unprecedented. Like I said above about Richard’s reputation being so much better, people often have no idea that he rebelled against Henry II, his own father, not once but twice.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The same way Richard did — that he had also rebelled against the king not once but twice during his time as a realm prince. Philip Augustus was also a master of intrigue and was extremely manipulative. These two reasons are why Richard forgave John — because what he did was nothing especially heinous or unprecedented. Like I said above about Richard’s reputation being so much better, people often have no idea that he rebelled against Henry II, his own father, not once but twice.

            Specifically, that second time, Richard sided with Philip Augustus basically to overthrow his father, so what John did wasn’t terribly far off. The idea that it’s worse to do such a thing to your brother as opposed to your father is ridiculous, especially when it’s fundamentally a usurpation rebellion against the king all the same.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Prince Richard rebels against his king father with the help of Philip Augustus
            >Richard viewed as noble, respectable
            >Prince John rebels against his king brother with the help of Philip Augustus
            >John viewed as a dishonourable traitor
            Doesn’t take a genius to see how plainly unfair and absurd this selectiveness favouritism is.

            To add onto this, critics of John aren’t considering how the years of heavy taxation continued into his reign (as was necessary) and that in general, many were fed up with the personalities of the irritable and wrathful Angevin kings. It is in a way that the barons who revolted did so to a process rather than to just King John himself.

            I mean if you had three kings in a row whose reigns spanned decades and all three of them plus their other family members had certain infamously buttholey familial personality traits, along with the fact that there was unprecedented taxation highs and a large loss of lands, you and others would probably hit a breaking point after a good while too. In some way it does appear that that breaking point accumulated during John’s reign. Hard to say if the baronial rebellion still would have happened had the extensive loss of lands in 1204 not happened though. Worth mentioning however that the baronial rebels weren’t all powerful, nor all of the barons. The reason they were able to get John to the table to sign the Magna Carta was because they rushed taking London while he was away on campaign in France. So that was pretty underhanded.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            selectiveness and favouritism*

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >ignores the entire part that it was a crusade
            Henry II was not on crusade.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Technically it was not when Richard was ‘on crusade’ but returning from it. John only made a move on the throne when he was informed by Philip Augustus that Richard had been captured and imprisoned by the Duke of Austria and handed over to the Holy Roman Emperor. It was assumed by many that Richard would never be released, since he had famously made several enemies among the other crusaders due to his abrasive personality along with some other notable instances of conflict and dispute. Not saying what John did was right or anything, but just that it might genuinely have seemed like Richard would die a prisoner.

            Once again, we have to remember that Richard was not too punitive and was rather forgiving to John for what happened, probably because he knew firsthand how slippery and manipulative Philip Augustus was. He confiscated John’s lands and titles but let him serve in his army (which he did rather decently) and already like 2 years on he returned them all to John and openly declared him his heir.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wasn’t he generally incompetent?
            Quite the opposite actually. Modern historians tend to acknowledge that King John was actually a rather excellent and energetic administrator. His brother, Richard, would just relegate the tasks and duties of rulership to nobles and statesmen because he had no interest in taking charge and doing these things himself. Ironically this was viewed as ‘good’ kingship, because the nobles of that era were extremely entitled and pushy. Ergo when a king who was actually interested in doing some of these things himself came along, he was villainized as a power-hungry tyrant for it.

            John is also scathingly documented by his enemies in that era for being explosively short-tempered, but this was a trait his brother and father before him both also had. The difference was that Henry II put together an enormous big dick kingdom that was extremely impressive, and Richard was a battlefield genius, so by comparison John did not have anything as impressive under his belt. His legacy became losing virtually all of the Angevin continental lands. The thing is, though, that this was inevitable. France was both richer and had a larger population, and the debts of King Richard’s reign were so abysmally enormous that had he not died like an arrogant fool in 1199, these would have come crashing down upon him during his own lifetime, and we likely would remember his reign very differently, as his mistakes would have caught up with him. He died at a very convenient time for his reputation.

            Very interesting and informative, thank you. Can you recommend any books on John that analyze his character and rule in a fair way like this?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Stop taking chat GPT posts seriously.
            They will never give you a book. John was a failure, he had a good stretch where he accumulated a lot of wealth and subdued the nobilty and then lost it all in moronic military campaigns which led him to sign magna carta. His reign was unanimously a failure.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not a GPT post. I wrote that myself without referring to any material, but I have now

            King John: England’s Evil King? by Ralph Turner. Bought it and read it last year. I think it’s from about 20 years ago now. I really enjoyed it and not just for content’s sake, but because it was actually pretty well written too. It was less dense than I had assumed it was going to be, and Turner gives what feels like a very fair and objective analysis of John’s lifetime and reign. If you want, I can share some more and more specific details on it; I’d be happy to.

            directly mentioned the source that informed me the most and best about John’s reign. Take your naysaying negativity elsewhere anon, this thread isn’t for the likes of you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            King John: England’s Evil King? by Ralph Turner. Bought it and read it last year. I think it’s from about 20 years ago now. I really enjoyed it and not just for content’s sake, but because it was actually pretty well written too. It was less dense than I had assumed it was going to be, and Turner gives what feels like a very fair and objective analysis of John’s lifetime and reign. If you want, I can share some more and more specific details on it; I’d be happy to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Thanks anon, I’ll add this book to my reading list.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I bought it on Amazon for about 15$. Quite a good price. I hope you get around to reading it soon because I would love to discuss it. If ever I see a post on King John over the course of this summer, know that I will comment upon it! I use this board frequently so I likely won’t miss it when the time comes.

            best biography of john?

            Probably

            King John: England’s Evil King? by Ralph Turner. Bought it and read it last year. I think it’s from about 20 years ago now. I really enjoyed it and not just for content’s sake, but because it was actually pretty well written too. It was less dense than I had assumed it was going to be, and Turner gives what feels like a very fair and objective analysis of John’s lifetime and reign. If you want, I can share some more and more specific details on it; I’d be happy to.

            . I’m biased, but the older ones I’ve peeked in and partially read from the early 20th century and the 19th century before it are really slanted and overly dramaticized.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        John would have been a good king if he had been groomed for the position originally instead of being scorned as a second-son. Because of the horrendous family he grew up in, he became a petty, vengeful, paranoiac with an inferiority complex, and made continual tactless political blunders even though his record as an administrator is unimpeachable.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He had 3 older brothers, he wasn't scorned as a 2nd son.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Lion of Winter (1968) gives a dramatized version of Henry’s relations with his sons and wife in his later years. Becket (1964) covers it to an extent in his younger years, the film is mostly about his relationship and struggle with Thomas Beckett though.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    best biography of john?

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's the relationship between William Marshall and the Angevin kings he served. KINO

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Henry II's collapse after his favorite son John betrays him
    I cry every time.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    King John was a good administrator but mediocre king who tried his best, Richard was both a good king and a military commander. Read Gillingham's biography of Richard for free on Library Genesis, so tired of this Victorian cliché still permeating in the minds of people today)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      More like Richard was a ‘good’ king because he relegated basically all of the tasks associated with kingship to subordinate noblemen. He had very little interest in reigning and administrating; he was much more interested with war fighting, which to be fair, he was outstandingly good at. People respected the hell out of that and were willing to turn a blind eye to his shortcomings because of it. He was basically like Robert Baratheon from GoT, really.

      John on the other hand was very interested and energized for when it came to administration work. Because of this, and because he wanted to do a lot of it himself, he was viewed by contrast as a micromanager and even as tyrannical because his hands-on approach was the exact opposite of Richard’s. Ironically this should be viewed as ‘good’ kingship because John was making the effort to actually lead and govern, but to many of John’s subordinate contemporaries this was viewed as infringing on the privileges they came to enjoy under the off-hands king who had reigned before him.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >good king
      He undermined the foundations of his dynasty by being an absent king and letting the nobility gain too much power. His brother and nephew would have to deal with the fallout

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >His brother and nephew would have to deal with the fallout
        And this was exactly what happened. The debts John was saddled with at the beginning of his reign in 1199 were enormous. Obviously it’s not Richard’s fault per se that he was imprisoned, which was illegal, but it was his abrasive personality and general buttholery which was why he made the enemies he did throughout Christendom. Had he not been such an insufferable dickhead, he would not have been imprisoned by the enemies he had made, and thus the enormity of indebted money which had to be raised for his ransom would not have been necessitated — simple as.

        Richard was very obviously a douchebag. Not only did he rebel against his father twice, once of which was because he refused to hand down the Duchy of Aquitaine to John after he was literally getting an heir-related status promotion because of the fact that their older brother Henry ‘the Young King’ had died, but he also completely disregarded his only son, leaving him nothing. Even though he (Philip) was illegitimate, many illegitimate sons during those times were given high status positions, and this was the norm, including the likes of Richard and John’s own half-brothers.

        The fact that King Richard is still as revered as he is in contemporary historical memory goes to show how poor the general knowledge of history really is. The guy is literally only revered and idolized because he was a successful battlefield commander — very few know that he was otherwise a terrible king. King John, on the other hand, while obviously imperfect, is not appreciated for his efforts.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >
          The fact that King Richard is still as revered as he is in contemporary historical memory goes to show how poor the general knowledge of history really is. The guy is literally only revered and idolized because he was a successful battlefield commander — very few know that he was otherwise a terrible king. King John, on the other hand, while obviously imperfect, is not appreciated for his efforts.
          Yeah it's called having a functioning brain.

          Richard dies, England is whole, prosperous and safe.
          Under John? All continental possessions are lost and half the country is occupied by rebels attempting to put a French prince on the throne.

          It's amazingly simple to see which one people preferred.

          You are trying to argue that a bit of debt is somehow worse than the nation being plundered and pillaged.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They were both bad kings, John's son too. Edward I was the first good king England had since Henry II

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Edward I
            The baronial chimpouts were dealt with by the time his reign started

            >
            The fact that King Richard is still as revered as he is in contemporary historical memory goes to show how poor the general knowledge of history really is. The guy is literally only revered and idolized because he was a successful battlefield commander — very few know that he was otherwise a terrible king. King John, on the other hand, while obviously imperfect, is not appreciated for his efforts.
            Yeah it's called having a functioning brain.

            Richard dies, England is whole, prosperous and safe.
            Under John? All continental possessions are lost and half the country is occupied by rebels attempting to put a French prince on the throne.

            It's amazingly simple to see which one people preferred.

            You are trying to argue that a bit of debt is somehow worse than the nation being plundered and pillaged.

            >it was just a little debt
            You're just trying to shield Richard when it was a lot more than a little debt. He decentralized the power of the English Throne for that alone he was a terrible king

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He decentralized the power of the English Throne for that alone he was a terrible king
            https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The path that led to the Magna Carta being agreed to by John at the mercy of his rebelling barons never would have occurred were it not for the reign of Richard in bankrupting the kingdom and as the other anon noted, undermining the throne via decentralization with his wanton willingness to relegate regal tasks and responsibilities to ambitious noblemen who then did not want a reversal and a return to the way things were before. Not hard to imagine why — just look at how civilian populations act when former privileges are cut by their governments. Nobody reacts positively to losing what they came to feel entitled to.

            John sought to rule with the same rights and in the same style that his father did, which is worth noting since not only was he raised seeing what those norms were, but he was also specifically Henry II’s favourite son (whom Henry most likely would have chosen for his successor in a perfect world where he would just be able to chose one of them like that). Like was said before, Richard’s reign - his absentee administrative actions and decisions - wienered things up. He then died before his enormous debts caught up with him and he saddled John with a very difficult and turbulent position to begin reigning with.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > it not for the reign of Richard in bankrupting the kingdom and as the other anon noted, undermining the throne via decentralization
            Fricking LOL.

            So explain how John was able to build up a massive war chest and invade France if he was bankrupt? They rebelled AFTER his own failures.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So explain how John was able to build up a massive war chest and invade France if he was bankrupt?
            Taxes.
            >They rebelled AFTER his own failures
            No they they were undermining his campaigns. When he left Britain they would start to act up

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Taxes
            I’m genuinely amazed that this other anon had to ask how King John raised the funds, given that overtaxation was deemed a huge reason for the revolt against him.
            >No they they were undermining his campaigns.
            This. A frickload of them refused to show up when called upon.
            >When he left Britain they would start to act up
            This too. Literally exactly what happened.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Taxes
            I’m genuinely amazed that this other anon had to ask how King John raised the funds, given that overtaxation was deemed a huge reason for the revolt against him.
            >No they they were undermining his campaigns.
            This. A frickload of them refused to show up when called upon.
            >When he left Britain they would start to act up
            This too. Literally exactly what happened.

            Let me explain something to you about money

            England "bankrupt" does not mean it isn't producing. YEARS AFTER England had stopped being bankrupt after John had made his personal rule known to the barons he went around FORCING more money out of them to build a war chest even though he had more money than Richard ever did at that point. He then invaded France, did terribly and faced a massive revolt that only was able to be resolved since John himself was dead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >magna carta
            And how do you think it came to that?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And I forgot to mention here

        >His brother and nephew would have to deal with the fallout
        And this was exactly what happened. The debts John was saddled with at the beginning of his reign in 1199 were enormous. Obviously it’s not Richard’s fault per se that he was imprisoned, which was illegal, but it was his abrasive personality and general buttholery which was why he made the enemies he did throughout Christendom. Had he not been such an insufferable dickhead, he would not have been imprisoned by the enemies he had made, and thus the enormity of indebted money which had to be raised for his ransom would not have been necessitated — simple as.

        Richard was very obviously a douchebag. Not only did he rebel against his father twice, once of which was because he refused to hand down the Duchy of Aquitaine to John after he was literally getting an heir-related status promotion because of the fact that their older brother Henry ‘the Young King’ had died, but he also completely disregarded his only son, leaving him nothing. Even though he (Philip) was illegitimate, many illegitimate sons during those times were given high status positions, and this was the norm, including the likes of Richard and John’s own half-brothers.

        The fact that King Richard is still as revered as he is in contemporary historical memory goes to show how poor the general knowledge of history really is. The guy is literally only revered and idolized because he was a successful battlefield commander — very few know that he was otherwise a terrible king. King John, on the other hand, while obviously imperfect, is not appreciated for his efforts.

        that being an active king who didn’t let the nobility gain too much power was exactly why Henry II was respected. It was basically only his spoiled as frick sons who rebelled against him. In Ireland, for example, Henry II made deals with many native Irish lords which they found to be satisfactory and pleasing due to the fact that Henry was mutually trying to curb the advances of the Norman adventurer lords — he didn’t want them getting too powerful either.

        Richard relegating tasks and duties like a mofo because he hadn’t a shred of interest in administration changed the norms of rulership, and by the time John came to the throne, trying to rule like their father, the nobles had become spoiled. John was literally mentored by their father as well, which is pretty worth noting. He had his flaws but had it been him who reigned right after Henry II instead of Richard, John’s reign would probably have been a stable continuation as Henry II’s successor. Richard’s idiotic sole focus on being a big dick war fighter wienered everything up.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > and by the time John came to the throne, trying to rule like their father, the nobles had become spoiled.
          Except that's not what happened at all. John had the nobility completely under his thumb, he lost them with his moronic military campaigns in France.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >John had the nobility completely under his thumb
            Not at all true. Many Richard simps were very displeased when a) he made John his heir and b) when John ended up ascending to the throne because of it.

            They were both bad kings, John's son too. Edward I was the first good king England had since Henry II

            Indeed. My point was not that John was a good king, but rather that Richard was not a good king either and that he should likewise not be remembered as one.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe historical stereotype exists for a reason, you ever thought about that? Maybe Black folk do actually steal bikes and israelites really do love stealing money. If John was really not a bad king, then why did the people throughout history not actually like him? This liberal mindset of being contrarian of everything and saying the opposite is true is really obvious. It's like people trying to say Caligula and Nero were good emperors.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe historical stereotype exists for a reason, you ever thought about that?
            lmao the stereotype is a modern thing. Richard became le god king in the victorian era. Modern British myth is based on muh Magna Carta which was only between John and the Barons. His son also warred with the precursor to the parliament. For parliamentarians John and his son are evil because they are perceived the enemy

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Like it or not, culturally the anglo people have always believed in individual freedom and rights going back to antiquity. While the Magna Carta was not specifically in the interest of the commoner, it is seen as an unprecedented event. The idea that a King with absolute divine authority would make a legal agreement with his vassals was unthinkable at the time. When there is change, things don't happen over night. We look at historical events as steps taken to get to where things are today. Same reason we have reverence for Ancient Greece and the Roman Republic because of the idea of a citizen. England was always different from the rest of Europe culturally when it came to the individual. The idea of being a free landholder really is engrained in the anglo people.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >then why did the people throughout history not actually like him?
            Certain people with agendas looking to use the past to justify their present. Come on, anon. Seriously? How can you not recognize this…? Shakespeare’s plays, for example, are peak examples of this, his ‘histories’ especially shaped the way we think about a great many figures from English history. And many authors in the 19th century (a profoundly impactful era) not only worked off of these ideas, but solidified them in influential writings.

            For example, for Shakespeare’s take on Richard III, he has to be a villain. Why? Because he was defeated and overthrown by Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather — the grandfather of his biggest patron and the head of state in his lifetime. Look at your Marvel slop and see how inundated it is with pro-CIA propaganda. Things haven’t changed. This anon

            >Maybe historical stereotype exists for a reason, you ever thought about that?
            lmao the stereotype is a modern thing. Richard became le god king in the victorian era. Modern British myth is based on muh Magna Carta which was only between John and the Barons. His son also warred with the precursor to the parliament. For parliamentarians John and his son are evil because they are perceived the enemy

            gets it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Because Richard III was responsible for the death of Edward IV's family. It doesn't get much lower than someone who kills their own kin.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You don’t get it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon,

            >Maybe historical stereotype exists for a reason, you ever thought about that?
            lmao the stereotype is a modern thing. Richard became le god king in the victorian era. Modern British myth is based on muh Magna Carta which was only between John and the Barons. His son also warred with the precursor to the parliament. For parliamentarians John and his son are evil because they are perceived the enemy

            >then why did the people throughout history not actually like him?
            Certain people with agendas looking to use the past to justify their present. Come on, anon. Seriously? How can you not recognize this…? Shakespeare’s plays, for example, are peak examples of this, his ‘histories’ especially shaped the way we think about a great many figures from English history. And many authors in the 19th century (a profoundly impactful era) not only worked off of these ideas, but solidified them in influential writings.

            For example, for Shakespeare’s take on Richard III, he has to be a villain. Why? Because he was defeated and overthrown by Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather — the grandfather of his biggest patron and the head of state in his lifetime. Look at your Marvel slop and see how inundated it is with pro-CIA propaganda. Things haven’t changed. This anon [...] gets it.

            You don’t get it.

            is saying that certain special interest groups narrativize the past to push agendas in the present. Look at shows like Vikings and how they try to make it look like women warriors and women jarls were a norm rather than an exception, to which the feminists always say “muh Viking Age women had positions of power and rights!” in order to justify their own agenda for whining and b***hing about their rights here and now. It’s the exact same thing.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >giant kingdom
    moron

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    "He was tall, of elegant build; the colour of his hair was between red and gold; his limbs were supple and straight. He had quite long arms, which were particularly convenient for drawing a sword and wielding it most effectively. His long legs matched the arrangement of his whole body. With the not insignificant addition of his suitable character and habits, his was a figure worthy to govern."

    "The king also wore golden spurs on his feet. He wore a tunic of rose samite with a cloak over it; the cloak had the shapes of little half moons lined out on it, glowing white in solid silver, and shining orbs like suns scattered densely. Thus adorned, the king advanced. He was girded with a doughty sword with a golden hilt, hanging from a silken crossbelt. The scabbard was of fine workmanship, its edges indented with silver. He wore a cap of ‘scarlet’ on his head, embroidered by a skilful hand in gold thread with the shapes of various birds and beasts."

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'm surprised Henry III isn't the most hated king in Britain.
    He fought against Simon and his parliament
    He persecuted israelites
    You think he would be singled out in british textbooks as the worst king ever. Instead he's a non entity.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Astute observation, anon. You’re absolutely correct. I have never heard a single peep about Henry III. Could be because de Montfort’s persecution of israelites was worse; he can’t so easily be made into a parliamentarian martyr because overall he was pretty clearly a bad dude. Some people try it with Cromwell, but again he too is widely and largely recognized as a pretty bad dude. But Henry III also is sandwiched right in between the reigns of John and Edward I, two of the most influential reigns of English medieval history, the impacts of which both overshadow the history of Henry III’s era.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Could be because de Montfort’s persecution of israelites was worse; he can’t so easily be made into a parliamentarian martyr because overall he was pretty clearly a bad dude
        Henry III's reign is still one of the longest reigns in british history. That's 50 years. The Second Barons war was pretty wild as well. You're right though he has a less interesting character than father, uncle, grandfather, and son which does not help

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *