King John

 

Was John Really Such a Bad King?

King John is often thought of as the worst King in English history, but was he as bad as writing from his time say he was? Might the views we are so accustomed to be biased and might he have a good side after all?

 

King John was a well educated King and was effective in ruling the country. He visited every part of his Kingdom and made sure that laws were kept properly wherever he went. In fact, he would have been quite good as a King if it weren’t for his poor skills in the battlefield.

 

He was very unlucky, having the powerful and excellent warrior, Philip II of France, as his enemy. Going to war is expensive, and with a trail of defeats, John taxed and spent more and more money without getting anything back from the wars. Not only did John tax everyone far more than his predecessors, but prices rose rapidly in his reign. This meant that it cost him more than double the amount it had cost his  father to hire a knight.

 

While looking at evidence against King John, it is important to keep in mind that the people who could write in the Middle Ages were the monks. They had reason to hate John, as his argument with Pope Innocent III caused an interdict of churches.

 

Innocent would not accept John’s choice of the new archbishop of Canterbury, and chose Stephen Langton as his own preference. However, John said that Kings normally had a say in this matter. Innocent shut all churches, forbidding anyone to get married, have a holy burial or go to a service. This was a particularly strong blow when religion was the most important thing in people’s lives. John seemed unfazed and exiled a number of clergymen from England. The Pope responded to this by excommunicating John; the worst thing that could happen to somebody as it meant that they would not be able to go to heaven.

 

In 1213, five years after the interdict had been put upon England, John finally gave in and Langton was appointed as the archbishop of Canterbury, ending the excommunication. However, it was not until a year later that the interdict was lifted. Despite the fact that John was no longer excommunicated, monks still thought that John was evil and, as most of the writing was done by them, we get evidence that he was a horrible person.

 

In conclusion, I think that although he was not a good soldier, had a bad temper and was written about as “nature’s enemy” and  “cruel towards all men”, he may have done some great things during his time on the throne that we don’t know about. Since the monks bore him a grudge, they only wrote about his bad points, often magnifying them and stretching the truth to create a terrible image. I think it is unfair to judge him without the whole story, so do not know whether John was such a bad King.

 

 

NB WRITTEN AT AGE OF 12