Interpretations of King John
By comparison with Richard, then, John has been seen as a weedy little tick
From the BBC website Brothers and Rivals by Dr Mike Ibeji.
King John has gone down in History as a 'bad king'.
His reputation is tied up with the story of Robin Hood and, in everything from children's cartoons to
blockbuster films, he is portrayed as cruel, greedy, weak and tyrannical. And this, despite the fact that we all know
that Robin Hood never existed!
John's main problem was that most of what we know about his reign was written by monks, who kept the
Chronicles in those days. But John fell out with the church over who should be Archbishop of Canterbury - as a result
of which, the Pope put England under an Interdict for 6 years (the church was forbidden to hold any baptisms,
weddings or church services). So Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris, the two monks who wrote the Chronicles
of the time, did not hold back from attacking John, and reported every bit of scandal and gossip, whether it was true or
not. John was accused of murdering his nephew, torturing Jews and strangling his wife's lovers. They read more like
the News of the World than true history!
Were they being unfair? In many ways, John was quite a good king. He modernised the government and
the law courts. He built Dublin Castle and established law and order in most of Ireland. He defeated the Scots, and
he invaded and conquered Wales. John had two major failures: Normandy was conquered by the King of France, and
John lost a war to get it back, and the barons rebelled and made John sign the Magna Carta. But John never accepted
either the loss of Normandy or Magna Carta. He died in 1215, still fighting to try to defeat the barons.
Source A
An illustration in an old children's encyclopaedia from the 1930s.
The picture was drawn to illustrate the story of what happened when John was
forced to sign Magna Carta, and to agree that a committee of 25 barons would
make sure he kept it: "They have given me 25 over-kings!" he shrieked, and in his
rage he tore at his beard and his clothes, threw himself on the floor, and chewed
at the matting upon it'. The source of this story? - Matthew Paris, of course!
Task 1
Make a list of SIX things about John that you can see in Source A.
Task 2
Think of THREE words which describe what kind of person John seems in Source A? Explain
your answers, referring to things you can see in the picture.
Source B
John was a tyrant not a king, crushing his own people. He had lost Normandy through laziness,
and was keen to ruin England. He bullied people into giving him money, and stole their land. He
detested his wife and she him. He was jealous of his barons and slept with their wives and
daughters. As for Christianity, he was unfaithful. Foul as it is, hell itself is made fouler by the
presence of King John.
From Chronica Majora, by Matthhew Paris.
Matthew Paris was a monk of St Albans Abbey, written from 1235-1259. Paris started writing 20 years after John died He
disliked the king and foreigners, and said many bad things about both in his books. He was VERY biased against King John.
Source C
The monster of evil portrayed by Wendover and Paris must be rejected forever... John had the
administrative ability of a great ruler but ... from the moment he began to rule, rivals and traitors
plotted to cheat him out of his kingdom. Though he retreated sometimes in moments of danger,
he never gave up.
From the book King John, by WL Warren (1961).
W Lewis Warren went to Oxford University, did a PhD in Philosophy, and then went to be lecturer in History at The Queen's
University of Belfast. He described himself as a Christian who disliked the church, and an historian who liked Science.
Reviewers said that his book on King John was 'brilliant'.
Task 3
Sources B and C disagree about Richard. Who would the artist of Source A most have agreed
with: Matthew Paris (who wrote Source B), or WL Warren (who wrote Source B)? Explain your
answer.