A Closer Look at King John of England

“Sir John the First, he was the worst.” This is a child's rhyme and yet a sentiment emulated by many well respected pieces of literature not only today but throughout history. Nearly eight hundred years later and he is still possibly the most notorious king in English history. However, was he really as bad as he is presumed to be? Stories such as Robin Hood and Sir Walter Scott's Ivanhoe would have you think as much. But, if these were wholly accurate then why would Winston Churchill have said “When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns”? John's family certainly didn't do much for England; they caused plenty of harm both to their nation and each other. Could John in his rule have actually done more good than his father or precious brother, Richard Coeur de Lion? At first it certainly doesn't look like it, but perhaps if one digs a little deeper they'll see that Winston Churchill's statement really is true.

John's family background wasn't exactly ideal. His father Henry II is best remembered for causing the untimely demise of the Archbishop of Canterbury, an affair which ended with Henry kneeling at the grave of Archbishop Thomas Becket and having himself voluntarily whipped by the monks there as penance. John's Mother was the famous lady Eleanor of Aquitaine; she more than once incited his brothers to rebel against their father and she herself became imprisoned for the last sixteen years of Henry's reign. Once Henry died Eleanor's eldest remaining son inherited the throne - John's brother Richard. Richard, as soon as he was crowned, set off for a costly crusade which would drive the country into...

... middle of paper ...

...ether with the Chancellor, set up some of England's first proper records – outside of William the conqueror's Domesday Book – known as the Pipe Rolls. Also, it is said by some sources that John was actually a pretty fair minded king and that he often presided over the Royal Courts. His justice was supposedly much sought after. As Medieval historian C. Warren Hollister puts it, John was

“...talented in some respects, good at administrative detail, but suspicious, unscrupulous, and mistrusted.”

That really seems to sum up John. Unscrupulous and mistrusted, yet not bad at “administrative detail”. So really, after looking at all the evidence, Winston Churchill's statement still stands true:

“When the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns”