Talk:John of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

	Middle Ages Portal John of England is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

Contents 1 Alleged Illiteracy 2 First Marriage 3 Lopsided nature of article 4 Lost crown jewels (Life, subsection Death) 5 Trivia: Bathing 6 1166 vs 1167 7 name? 8 Dispute with Arthur [I?] 9 Birth 10 Guy de Lusignan and Isabella of Angoulême 11 Robin Hood 12 Pipe Rolls 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 13.2 Discussion 13.2.1 Rule? 14 Fourth Child 15 Re: Legacy 16 Lionheart - only used later? 17 Date of death

[edit] Alleged Illiteracy

Just seen a documentary (12 Books that Changed the World, ITV) by the renowned clever person Melvyn Bragg who, in discussing Magna Carta quite plainly stated "there is no evidence that King John could write". This contradicts the section on alleged illiteracy in this article (which in itself reads a bit like a polemic lifted from an earlier encyclopaedia). 84.68.139.205 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd find it highly impropably that any child of the highly cultured Eleanor and Henry II would be illiterate or unable to write their own name. But that's my opinion.

Likely or unlikely isn't really good enough. In view of the fact that it has been positively asserted in the past that he was illiterate, it's worth mentioning that there is a lack of evidence: but if there is no firm evidence either way then it's highly irresponsible to claim he COULD write.

Melvyn Bragg is probably wrongif you look at the records of court cases in certain cases you can see that John has written (or at least it seems he has as he did it personally) in the margine changing the verdict and giving reasons why. This evidence shows that he could write along with the fact that he was educated by Henry 2nds most senior offical in england Ranulph Glenville. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjm6169 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Since there's only going to be one... ;-) JHK

I have heard that John's reputation was so bad that the name "John" was retired. English law decrees there shall never be another king named "John".

Sounds believable. For sure there's never been anyone in line to the throne called John. I just thought the rule was informal, like the rest of the Constitution. Saves having a rather odd "Article IX: No monarch of the realm shall be named John" stuck in there  : ) Wooster 13:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not so. John's grandson, Edward I, named his second son John (the boy died young). Edward III also had a son named John of Gaunt, who was a very powerful nobleman and the de facto ruler of England for several years. A still later king (Edward VII I believe?) also had a son named John who also died young. The name John has an unfortunate history, that's all. Missi

Much like the name 'Arthur', which after John killed Arthur of Brittany just had bad luck attached to it - other 'Arthur's (Edward I's son, of Henry VII's son, for example) tended to die young. Not formally legislated against, merely, umm, unwise...Lutefish

The theory 'there's never been anyone else in line to the English throne named John' is pretty silly. Edward I's eldest son was called John, and died at the age of five in 1271. Of course, if he'd lived, he would have succeeded his father as King of England in 1307. The second son of Edward II was also called John (of Eltham) - he was born in 1316 and died in 1336. If anything had happened to his elder brother Edward III before 1330 (when Edward III's son and heir was born), he would have become King of England. Then, as someone mentioned, there was Edward III's son John of Gaunt. AlianoreD 07:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the combined precedent of John of England, John Balliol and John II of France was enough to convince at least one Prince John - the eldest son of Robert II of Scots - that John was an unlucky name for a king. He therefore chose to be crowned as Robert III, despite the fact that he had a brother called Robert. (At the time of his christening, it was not expected that he would be King, because nobody thought that David II would die childless.)

---

The truth, however, is that he was no better or worse a king than his immediate predecessor or his successor (which is still not much of a compliment).

This is very POV. How can we reword this? -Kwertii

Quality of English kingship could be judged by contemporary popularity (which has to be carefully separated from posthumous popularity of course - making the previous incumbent look like a nasty incompetent piece of work so that you look good wasn't invented by politicians), the financial state of the country and level of civil strife (often effectively popularity among the barons, although they were often nasty pieces of work, so having them hate you might well indicate you were a more reasonable person). If you wanted to be terribly old-fashioned, politically incorrect and imperialistic you could include ability to kick the crap out of the Welsh/Scots/French/anyone the pope has said is fair game...Average Earthman 10:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The truth is actually that though he had a lot of ill luck John was actually one of the best Angevin Kings or at least the most ruthless as J.C.Holt I think calls him. This can be seen through the fact that though he lost in Ireland in the 1180's he beat the Welsh and the Scottish and the was in which he ruled. He had one of the best administrations in Europe at that time and they were efficent. To understand why he had such bad luck and has such a lousy reputation we must in fact look to his father and brother Richard. His father Henry 2nd put down the barons rebellion of 1173 by taking their castles away and never giving them back. This came up again in Johns reign when the Barons were discontent. Fast forwarding to Richards reign and the troubles that he gave John. Firstly he bankrupted England building castles especally Castle Gaillard I think its spelt in Normandy. This meant that when John came to the throne and Philip attacked he didn't have the money to fight back whilst Philip who had used Richards money to go on the crusade rather than his own had much more money to fight him hence he won really. Even W.L.Warren who is not too kind to John admits that Richard wouldn't have been able to hold Normandy. Also the hearts of the Normans and the Aquatainians weren't really with the Angevins even during Henry 2nds reign the Norman like for their dukes was beginning to wane. They went down even further with Richard taking so much money from them and so when Philip broke through their borders in 1203/4 all most all of them surendered immediatly including alot of the castles. Further more he managed to stand up to the Pope all through the interdict, something Philp hadn't been able to do. England only became a Papal state because JOhn gave it to him willingly. It it thought that he did this to aleaviate some of his responsibilities to the Pope. This shows that though he was very inconsistant and unlike his father lacked winners gace 'He couldn't help but kick a man when he was down' he was ruthless and goverened well if just a little too harsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjm6169 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I've changed the bit about 'threatened French invasion'. It wasn't just threatened, Louis (and his baronial supporters) had control of London at the time. It was when John died that the barons decided they'd rather have the infant Henry on the throne than Louis, and switched sides. Average Earthman 11:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think more needs to be written about this. Not necessarily in this article. I think few people, even people with a reasonable knowledge of history, are aware of this succesful invasion by the French. Mintguy (T) 12:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because it doesn't count :-) He only came because of the backing of the barons (without whom you don't have an army), and he got kicked out pretty sharpish when he lost it. And he never got much of the country (including Dover IIRC) The Dutch don't claim to have successfully invaded the British Isles because William of Orange got the throne... Average Earthman 12:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well it's a moot point. The English army deserted to Wiliam's side. How much fighting occured after Louis landed? Louis harldy ever gets a mention. He's a missing pretender. Mintguy (T)

---

The DOB has been changed to 1166 by 63.228.161.51 - however, although both 1166 and 1167 are reported by Google, 1167 is the date used on the official British royal family webpage. Is there an original 12th century cite out there to determine which date is correct?Average Earthman 09:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1167 is impossible for one good reason -- King Henry and Queen Eleanor weren't together in March 1167, when John would have to have been conceived! They were, however, together in March 1166. Also, John was born in England on or around Christmas, and Henry and Eleanor spent Christmas 1167 together at Argentan in Normandy. Missi

The only way the 1167 birth date is possible is if Henry II wasn't Johns father. But it seems unlikely because Eleanor was a very honest woman and no affairs are ever recorded.

I removed one the images, a portrait from 1902, because A) it's probably not a very accurate depiction of the man, and B) the article is already rather picture-heavy. If the article grows some more, I'd support it being added back just to demonstrate historical depictions of him outside of his own time, as a minor point of interest, but I definitely don't think it needs to go at the top by the intro. Everyking 17:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's been replaced now. I think we should give precedence to images of a person from his or her own time to portraits done 700 years later, but I suppose that isn't how it shall be. Everyking 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

hey dude...this page is sweet!!

---

I'm a bit confused as to why the page is title John of England - I've never heard of King John referred to in this way.

It's the standard way in which we name articles on monarchs. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical_titles.

James F. (talk) 06:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh, could King John have been the inspiration for the Burger King of the Burger King Kingdom? He did kinda look like him, at least according to that illustration.

---

I've found documentation for two more illegitimate children! John was certainly a busy fellow. Besides his five legitimate offspring, he had at least twelve bastards by various and sundry women. At this rate, he's going to catch up with his notoriously fertile great-grandfather, Henry I of England, soon. John's illegitimate children I have found documentation for are:

1. Richard ("Ricardus de Warenn' filius regis Johannis"), Curia Rolls
2. Joan ("Johannes Rex anglie solutus te genuerit de soluta"), Register of Honorius III
3. Oliver. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
4. Osbert. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
5. John. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
6. Henry ("Henricum filium le Rey"). Curia Rolls, Memoranda Roll, Pipe Rolls
7. Eudes ("Eudoni filio regis"). Calendar Liberate Rolls, Cartulary of Launceston Priory
8. Bartholomew. Calendar of Papal Registers
9. Geoffrey ("Gaufrido filio nostro"). Curia Rolls
10. Maud ("Dame Maud la file le Roy Jon"). Monasticon Anglicanum
11. Isabel ("filie Regis Joh'is"). Herald and Genealogist 7, 1873
12. Philip ("Philippum Fitz Le Rey"). Saltzman, L.F. Abstract of Feet of Fines Relating to the County of Sussex, 1908.

Missi 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything editing, so I don't think I should attempt to fix this myself, especially since the portion in question is hyperlinked. But I did notice an error in this article:
The canon of Laon, writing a century later, states John was named after Saint John the Baptist, on whose feast day (December 27) he was born.
December 27 is the feast day of Saint John the Evangelist, not St. John the Baptist. That would be June 24. Perhaps the error lies with the original source (the canon of Laon), but it's an error nonetheless.

• • The quote from the chronicle in question, Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, is: "quia circa festum beati Johannis natus fuit, Johannem eum appellaverunt" (John was named after the sainted John, because he had been born on the saint's feast day). St. John the Baptist's feast day was June 24, called "summer St. John's day", while St. John the Evangelist's feast day was December 27 called "winter St. John's day". We know John was born late in 1166, probably around Christmastime -- Queen Eleanor did not attend the Christmas court at Poitou that year, and instead stayed in England. This is understandable if she was heavily pregnant and had no wish to risk a winter crossing of the Channel. I must have confused the two saints John, and will correct in the article. Missi

[edit] First Marriage

The article says King John first married Avisa or Isabella, these being alternate names of a daughter of William Fitz Robert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester. However, that page suggests that Isabella and Avisa were different daughters, and that it was Isabella who married the youg John. It also says that later, Isabella married Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent. But that page says Hubert married "Avisa... ex-wife of King John of England"!! I'm confused! ::Supergolden:: 10:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lopsided nature of article

Given the immense body of scholarly work on John's reign, and the importance of the loss of Normandy and Magna Carta to English history, how come so much of the article is about literacy?

Because to be fair if we look at Magna Carta in its actual contxt then it really should have had no effect on the world. Contrary to how the Americans view it it was not a document of liberty as it gave liberty to only the Barons. When John signed it in 1215 he was signing it believing it to be a peace treaty. There was an artical (no'61) with in it that he could never accept and the Barons knew this, it stated that there wuld be a council of 25 knights whose job it would be to keep the king in check meaning that in effect they were above the King and this would be impossible for even the barons to accept under feudal law (which was in fact never writen down and in fact John when he levied all his taxes was merely using it to his advantage than going against them this is shown by one of the Chronicles as the writer studied law at boulogne and unlike the other chronicles never says anything about John using his administration to do anything illegal indicating that he was working with in his boundaries). John signed it hoping that this bit would be ignored (which in the end it was) and hoping that it would bring peace. It didn't the Barons had writen it up with the help of Steven Langton (though he didn't know it) to try and trap John. They hoped that he would react to it and hence give them a reason to rebel and gain power. Shown by the fact that they rebelled any way after John had signed it. So looking at it in context it had no more importance to history as it should have been than say the treaty of London i.e. of no importance but because of outside events in the Magna Carta's case Whig historians, it gained an importance it shouldn't have had. The power that it gained wasn't gained till well after his death as during the last part of his life it was all but forgotten, hence it doesn't feature much in this article. Litteracy however features prominently with in the article because at that time because up untill Henry 2nd Kings weren't generally literate and he forced his children to be taught so it was quite a strange thing. It is also important as if you were to look at the records that John kept and looked at his particulary in the margines of the court cases you will often see his hand where he has looked at a case involving children and you will find that he has reversed the charges claiming usually that they are younger than the age of reason. If he were illiterate and uneducated then he wouldn't have been able to do this nor keep such a good government. Hence his being able to write it quite important. Also sorry last thing, most of the scholarly work you're talking about comes from the chronices and to pull one out, Roger of Wendover, many of them weren't writing about John till after his death Roger didn't put pen to paper till 1225 or there abouts and Matthew of Paris till about 50 years after his death. So really the chroincles whilst they give us a more popular oppinion (though not interms of the peasents and workers who seemed to have liked him) tend to tell the gossip and such of John of which most of it seems to be unfounded. They say the loss of Normandy was due to his spending time with his wife telling his barons 'let him take my land I shall have it back one day', this is unture. To see what he was really up to we must look at the records which tell us where and what he was doing and for a lot of the time what Normandy was being lost he was in England not enjoying his wife (who at this point in time was only about 13 and he didn't acually cohabit with her it seems till she was a fair bit older) but going around the country collecting money. The article however seems to leave out alot about the records and focuses on the chronicles which cannot be entirely trusted except in so far as sensationalist papers today can be trusted and in many cases even less than them as they had very little access to the royal court the only chronicle that had anything close to this was the Margam Annals which were founded by William and Mathilda De Briouze who were close to John as any one was till 1208 when he hounded down and effectvily killed them. Sorry i've gone on lol just there's alot of background that needs to be explained to understand John most of before his coming to the throne. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjm6169 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we please dispense with the all-too-frequent statements I find that say words to the effect "the Americans think" or "the republican Americans would like this" or, as stated above, "contrary to how the Americans view it". We do not all think the same, or know the same history, or have the same beliefs or misconception. I don't see Americans writing, "all the Brits think..." or "all the French believe..." so let's not make blanket statements about nationalities or peoples. They're usually not true anyway. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost crown jewels (Life, subsection Death)

From http://britannia.com/history/narmedhist3.html: "One persistent legend is that he lost all his baggage train, including the Crown jewels in the marshy area known as the Wash in the county of Norfolk." The article treats this well-known story as fact. Is it? David Watson 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the loss of some of John's treasures (but not necessarily the Crown jewels) is supposedly attested in Roger of Wendover's Flores Historiarum; that would probably be a good place to start checking. Choess 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Henry III had to be crowned with a bracelet, because the crown and adornments were lost in the Wash, that is correct --Tefalstar 19:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: Bathing

I am bothered by the entry on John's baths in the trivia section. First, if those payments for baths every three weeks indicate "an elaborate and ceremonial affair," this implies (to me, at least) that these were not his basic baths, but rather something extra-ordinary. Logically, the statement as it stands does not hold. Second (and this is one of my pet peeves), bathing in the middle ages is not the same as it is today (and anyhow, how many people take a bath, in a tub, every day anymore?) - it meant going to a public bathhouse (often the equivalent of a modern "massage parlor"). It was more of a social event than just washing, and may have been like today's swimming pools (or swimming baths, as I have seen them called in England). As for the monks, of course they're not going to bathe frequently - in part because of the association of "bathing" with vice, and second, foregoing regular cleaning (at the baths or no) was part of their ascetic regime.

I suggest amending the entry to "According to records of payment made to King John's bath attendant, William Aquarius, the king bathed on average about once every three weeks, which cost a considerable sum of 5d to 6d each, suggesting an elaborate and ceremonial affair." It shortens the passage, eliminates problematic modern views, and emphasizes the special nature of the occassion. If anyone objects to the edit, please state why. Otherwise, if there is no further comment, I will make my suggested edit.

Ibnsanjil 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)ibnsanjil

Because Bath houses died out with the Romans in england and so any bathing that would have gone on would have most likely have been done in private and if it comes from the records then it is safe to say that John had a bath every three weeks then. And as for monks John wasn't a monk and so his bathings will have been different. I believe that he would have bathed every three weeks because records show that he gave alot of money to his courtiers for them to look nice and took great pride in appearances. If this is so then it is likely that he did have a bath every three weeks.

[edit] 1166 vs 1167

I agree that 1166 is probably the year of John's birth, especially if it was immediately before Christmas. Apparently, until the 14th century (1301-1400), the new year began on December 25 (the calendar was, from 1100 to 1299, seven days slow compared to the Gregorian calendar yet to be enacted, so if Gregorian had been in effect, December 24, 1166 Julian would have been December 31, 1167 Gregorian, with the new year starting on December 25). As of sometime in the 14th century, New Year moved to March 25, before changing to January 1 starting in 1753.

Thus, if John was born on December 24, he was born the day before 1166 ended, and if he was born after 6 p.m., it would have been December 25, 1167. GBC 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name?

King John spoke French, born to parents born in France, and raised in French culture. Then wouldn't he have himself spelled his name Jean supposing he was literate? (I'm not asking for an argument I'd just like a simple answer with a reason why) -Working for Him 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The usual spelling in French/Anglo-Norman was Iehan or Jehan. In Latin it was Iohannes or Johannes. He himself would have used forms like these in writing (others will know whether he actually did or not). As regards the article title, the English Wikipedia adopts the form currently (nowadays) used in English, so we have no problem. It would, no doubt, be appropriate to mention these medieval forms of the name somewhere in the article. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute with Arthur [I?]

Arthur is called "I" in the heading (but nowhere else). He's Arthur I, Duke of Brittany, but the numeral isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, so it looks funny in the heading. I've deleted it.Eldred 17:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth

I am not really interested in the dispute about the birth year. Could we just say it is disputed, or "in 1167 or 1168" and leave it at that? New user here, hope I did this right. SedatedGodzilla 01:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC) = Since no one appears to object, I took out the birth year argument as it is somewhat distracting. If the author re-edited it in, I think it could be a topic further down in the article. SedatedGodzilla 16:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the removed text for consideration:

King Henry and Queen Eleanor were not together nine months prior to December 1167, but they were together in March 1166. Also, John was born at Oxford on or near Christmas, but Eleanor and Henry spent Christmas 1167 in Normandy. The canon of Laon, writing a century later, states John was named after Saint John the Apostle, on whose feast day (27 December) he was born. Ralph of Diceto also states that John was born in 1166, and that Queen Eleanor named him. Eleanor was 44 years old at the time.

--Old Moonraker 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guy de Lusignan and Isabella of Angoulême

In 1202, John was summoned to the French court to answer the charges one of which was his marriage to Isobel of Angouleme who was already engaged to Guy de Lusignan.

Shouldn't it be Hugh X of Lusignan? It says on both Isabella's page and Hugh's page that it was him or Hugh XI. Moreover, wasn't Guy de Lusignan dead for a few years in 1200/1202?

--Nakedophelia 23:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hood

I've changed "reworking of the legend of Hereward the Wake into Robin Hood, originally set 100 years before John's time" to "reworking of the legend of Robin Hood". The latter is accurate: the Robin Hood legend existed long before John was introduced into it, but he became a character as it was reworked. The former's assumption that Robin was in origin based wholly or largely on Hereward is at best massively POV and in my view downright inaccurate (Hereward's legend was certainly an influence, but that's a very different matter from being the principal source). The earliest references to Robin appear to be set AFTER John's time.

Further: the claim that schoolchildren used to be taught that Robin prevented John from embezzling Richard's ransom is extremely dubious. The ransom connection does not appear in fiction until the twentieth century, so far as I'm aware (and I've read a lot of Robin Hood literature), and I've never heard before of any school textbook describing Robin as real. In fact I think I'll remove it - if anybody can provide a citation for this claim they're welcome to reinstate it.

[edit] Pipe Rolls

This article credits John and his councillors with the creation of the Pipe Rolls; however, weren't the Pipe Rolls already in use much earlier, as far earlier as the 1130s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.173.1.81 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they were very broken and not used in the way that John used them i.e. they were a bit crap, he changed the way in which they were writen and organised and, the biggest change, made sure that they were used and coppied so that he had one set and Westminster had the other. This meant that unlike before his reign the Pipe rolls survive almost completely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjm6169 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Child

I have the documentary that was showed on Discovery Channel that CLEARLY says that King John was the fourth child, not fifth as stated in the article. Also, it says that he was born on Christmas Eve, on 1167, not Dec.24.1166. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.23.250 (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Legacy

Does anyone else think it worthy of note that one of the most common male names in the English language - John - was completely retired after Lackland and never used again? Seems to be an indication of how poorly he is viewed. -68.105.204.85 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Claimants and members of the family were called John afterwards, it was just a coincidence of the line that certain names like Edward and Henry are often used and those of John and Stephen are not. --Tefalstar (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lionheart - only used later?

The line '(known in later times as "Richard the Lionheart")' is at variance with Richard's own article, which says he was called that even before his own accession, let alone before his death and John's accession. I propose that we drop the "later times" business. Chris the speller (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Lionheart was used at least by his death, probably even before his coronation, so the later times thing should be dropped yes. --Tefalstar (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date of death

Firstly, we’re being inconsistent. In the lead we say he died on "19 October" (with a footnote); in the Death section we say it was "18 October (or possibly 19 October)". So that needs to be sorted out. Better to be consistently inaccurate than speaking with 2 voices.

But it seems we can’t really pin it down to an exact date in any case, since the precise time he died during the night of 18/19 October wasn’t recorded. I think it’s best to stick to the known facts, and say "18/19 October" throughout the article, rather than arbitrarily picking one date for one section and a different date for a different section. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)