- Thank you for registering to HistoryExtra.
- The Rule of History.
- John, King of England - Wikipedia;
- Visiting Dignitary;
Another major problem King John faced was a religious one. Because he argued with the Pope this gave him a bad reputation with many religious British men, who lost any respect that they had for King John and gave him a bad name. Matters were made worse by the fact he was suspected of killing several monks at Canterbury Cathedral, which added to his bad reputation.
These problems caused King John difficulties as many people hated him and lost respect for him. The loss of the land in France meant that the Barons thought of John as a weak ruler and the religious difficulties meant that he was viewed by the monks and priests as being anti religion. Many people have different views of King John, some as a good King some as a bad King.
My opinion of King John is that he was a bad King, although many of his problems were inherited as I have said in the paragraph above. He was very unfortunate to have these problems but I think that there were better ways to handle them. He did achieve some good things and the following is an extract from a recent history book. That is one reason which means you could say that he was a good king. Although there is some evidence to say that John was a good King I do not think that that evidence outweighs the evidence that he was a bad King.
My final view on King John is that he was a bad King and I believe that a lot of the evidence supports my view.
There are many historians who have different views and opinions about King John. The reasons for their views depend on what aspect of King John they study. If some historians look at King John and the way he taxed medieval Britain then their views probably would be more anti John than supportive of him. But historians who look at how he treated his people when he actually met them face to face would probably think of John as a good King as the passage from the recent history book shows in the paragraph above. Views and interpretations of King John have changed over time and there are various reasons why this has happened.
One of the reasons, and I think most obvious reason is the discovery of new evidence. Different pieces of evidence have been found since our first views of King John and these which give new perspective on King John. Another reason is that peoples beliefs and religions change, for instance the Victorians were extremely religious and they hated john. They worshiped the Magna Carta because they saw it as a new type of England, a democratic England. Interpretations change over time because views of people and things change. The conclusion of my essay is that King John was a bad king.
I have looked at the different evidence about whether King John was as a good or bad King and reached my decision. I came to that decision for many reasons that I have explained above. I think that King John was a bad king but he was not entirely blameworthy as he inherited many of the problems that he faced, however he could have dealt with them better.
This period ofhigh inflation from , as J. Bolton points out, was followed by price stability, but at a higher level.tranenerriede.gq
King John | libertyessay
This can be illustrated by Paul Latimer's study of wheat and oxen prices for the period. Overall, a recession lasting from was the result of poor economic management and increased military expenditure. An interesting comparison is teased out by Nick Barrat, who looks at the concomitant fiscal performance ofPhillip Augustus.
Again, John does not acquit himselfwell. Three essays resist the notion of a 'Celtic fringe' to elucidate successfully the different political frameworks of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and John's encounters with each. As a separate kingdom, Scotland was already a 'distant political culture', according to A. Duncan, w h o asserts the consolidation of Reviews Scottish autonomy in the early thirteenth century as a result ofJohn's minimal role in Scottish affairs.
Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, and the hold of time.
In Ireland, however, things were different. Sean Duffy describes the 'dubious legacy' p. In Wales, which was neither kingdom or lordship, conspiracy and split allegiances were the order ofthe day. For Ifor Rowlands, John's failure can be discerned in the stark contrast between the fairly strong position of the monarch in Wales in , and the collapse of royal power there by Wales had been implicated so deeply in the affairs of England, that when John's power began to collapse in England, it could not help but fall apart in Wales, too.
The situation in France is explored in detail, and, not surprisingly, we find that John was in some ways peripheral to the events that unfolded so disastrously around him. Jane Martindale reveals the fundamental political role still played by Eleanor ofAquitaine after , while Nicholas Vincent shows that Isabella ofAngouleme also played a central role in Capetian advances and John's losses.
John, King of England
Daniel Power argues that the disunited Norman aristocracy were variously happy to accommodate Phillip Augustus, indifferent to John, actively hostile to John or simply unable to Access options available:. Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.
Related was king john really a bad king essay
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved