The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royal History (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/)
-   -   Richard I "The Lionheart" (1157-1199) (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f165/richard-i-the-lionheart-1157-1199-a-28119.html)

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 05:49 AM

Richard I "The Lionheart" (1157-1199)
 
Richard I (8 September 1157 – 6 April 1199) was King of England from 6 July 1189 until his death. He also ruled as Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Lord of Ireland, Lord of Cyprus, Count of Anjou, Count of Maine, Count of Nantes, and Overlord of Brittany at various times during the same period. He was known as Cœur de Lion, or Richard the Lionheart, even before his accession, because of his reputation as a great military leader and warrior.[1] The Muslims (referred to as Saracens at the time) called him Melek-Ric or Malek al-Inkitar (King of England).[2]
By age 16, Richard was commanding his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitou against his father, King Henry II.[1] Richard was a central Christian commander during the Third Crusade, effectively leading the campaign after the departure of Philip Augustus and scoring considerable victories against his Muslim counterpart, Saladin, but was unable to reconquer Jerusalem.[3][4]
While he spoke very little English and spent very little time in England (he lived in his Duchy of Aquitaine, in the southwest of France), preferring to use his kingdom as a source of revenue to support his armies,[5] he was seen as a pious hero by his subjects.[6] He remains one of the very few Kings of England remembered by his epithet rather than regnal number, and is an enduring, iconic figure in England.[5]

Reign6 July 1189 – 6 April 1199Coronation3 September 1189PredecessorHenry IISuccessorJohnRegentEleanor of Aquitaine; William Longchamp (Third Crusade)ConsortBerengaria of NavarreHouseHouse of PlantagenetFatherHenry II of EnglandMotherEleanor of AquitaineBorn8 September 1157(1157-09-08)
Beaumont Palace, OxfordDied6 April 1199 (aged 41)
Châlus, LimousinBurialFontevraud Abbey, France



I really like Richard, and i think that he was one of the best and most interesting kings england ever had.
A really great tough knight.

Are there any others who like Richard?

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 06:49 AM

Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.

Lumutqueen 07-08-2010 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1108307)
Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.

Totally agree. I have only got this impression since, I must admit watching the latest Robin Hood film.
But I do think he was marginally better than his brother John.

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1108307)
Nope - I rate him one of England's worst kings for bankrupting the country and never being there. He didn't care about the country at all and simply was after his own glory at the expense of the English people and the country.

Well, i think that he feel more than a french like an english, because he spent more time in the aquitaine than in england.
I like him, but i knew, that he made a few mistakes as king.
This crusade was so unnessesary. but richard didnt take the money for the crusade from the poor people, he hold the taxes from the rich people and he sells titels and land to everyone who can pay.
I dont like his brother john, i think john I was the worst king, england ever had(he even hang children in the age between five and twelve).

What i like on Richard is:

In the third crusade he send a few of his knights out to watch the area.
when they didnt come back, he himself rides out in dangerous area to find and sive them, and he had said:
"If i cant find and save them from danger, i am not worth to be their king. I have send them there, so i had to save them."
He find the man and save them from the enemys.

I think that made him a good king.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1108325)
Totally agree. I have only got this impression since, I must admit watching the latest Robin Hood film.
But I do think he was marginally better than his brother John.


I think John was a better King of England because he was there and was doing things for England even if he went about things the wrong way. His biggest problem was dealing with the bankrupt country he inherited from his brother (much like Obama's situation inherited from G. Bush - but people are more understanding of the situation now).

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 09:32 AM

The rich had to get their money from somewhere and where did they get it - from the poor. Richard's crusade was funded at the expense of his people - the people he should have been caring about but instead he raped his country and caused the peasants to be more put upon by the nobility than before because the nobility had to raise the taxes by imposing extra charges on the peasants.

As for going to rescue his men - that isn't all the special - that is simply the sign of any decent officer.

Kings need to put their country first and Richard didn't. True he didn't care about England which makes the situation worse as he saw England as simply a place to raise money to promote his own position and not a place that he had to care about or even take an interest in.

Given a choice - I would take John over Richard any day simply because John at least was in England (John wasn't a good King by any stretch of the imagination but I rate him a whole lot better than Richard).

As a kid I was taught that Richard was a great king and when I challenged my teachers with the above arguements they couldn't counter but came back with 'Richard was a good Christian' to which my counter was 'but he killed people which goes against Christ's teachings' so again they couldn't counter. Even then I was opposed to the argument of fighting 'for King and Country' but rather saw the soldiers for what they are - state sanctioned murderers - particularly when they are invading other countries such as Richard's invasion of the Holy Land in the third crusade.

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1108365)
I think John was a better King of England because he was there and was doing things for England even if he went about things the wrong way. His biggest problem was dealing with the bankrupt country he inherited from his brother (much like Obama's situation inherited from G. Bush - but people are more understanding of the situation now).

I think, you cant compare Obama(which is a really great man) with King John.
King John did nothing for his country, and the magna charta was not his contributions.
His barons had coerced him to sign the magna charta, because he had broke many of their reights.
And the reason, why he was almost everytime in england, was, that he has lose his french estates in the first years of his reign.
But in one point i agree with you.
the crusade of richard was so senseless. He was a gread king, but his cusade was a great misstake.

But I think, everyone has his own meaning about this, and if you think, that john was the better king, thats ok.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 09:42 AM

I wasn't comparing Obama with John but rather the situations in which they found themselves when they came to power - countries in financial difficulties because of the disastrous decisions of their predecessors.

John had a problem with his barons because he had to raise taxes again - but why did he have to do so - yes he lost the French lands but he also had inherited a bankrupt country thanks to his brother. Had Richard been a good king he would have left his country in a far better state than he did and thus a lot of John's problems wouldn't have arisen. The same can be said for Obama - a lot of the problems he has had to deal with in the first 18 months of his presidency are the left overs of his predecessor. That was the comparison I was making - not a man for man comparison (it is way too early to judge Obama as a president) but a situation for situation comparison.

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 10:09 AM

It was not only the taxes...King John had send the wife of one baron (William de Braose) to the dungon with her youngest son.
And the poor woman and the child famished there.
John made a reign of violence and fear.

And when Richard was on crusade, John had take also high taxes, because he wanted to prevent, that eleanor can pay the ransome for Richard when he became a hostage of Leopold from austria, who sold him to Heinrich VI.

And i read, that Queen Eleanor does not like her youngest son...and a man, which was even disliked by his mother must be a very bad man.

I think, that john would have been a worst king, even if richard had left the land in a better state. I read, that john was mentally disordered, since he was a child, and a mentally ill king cant reign a country.

There is only one thing, i found good on him: he has made the efford to learn the english language. Most english Kings in the 12 century dont speak a word englisch.

Osipi 07-08-2010 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1108371)
The rich had to get their money from somewhere and where did they get it - from the poor. Richard's crusade was funded at the expense of his people - the people he should have been caring about but instead he raped his country and caused the peasants to be more put upon by the nobility than before because the nobility had to raise the taxes by imposing extra charges on the peasants.

Although Richard most likely did put great importance on the Crusades, I think another explanation of the nobility bleeding the peasants for all they could get has a bit of a side trip here also. It was quite popular during this time period to be a member of The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon known also the Knights Templar. A noble family was more prestigious if they donated wealth and/or land to the "cause". It wasn't Richard alone that was funding this crusade but also other Kings and nobles of the Holy Roman Empire. The third Crusade's aim was to recapture the Holy Land back from the Saracens which failed.

The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't believe that Richard in the Crusades was "going on a play soldiers" mission and ignoring his subjects' welfare but rather joining in with Kings of France and other countries along with the nobles to fight for the Holy Roman Empire.

Its interesting to note also that it is right after the failed third Crusade where interest in the once hallowed Knights Templar began to wane and a lot of interesting history begins. :biggrin:



Knights Templar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
King Richard the Lionheart and the Knights Templar

Wisteria 07-08-2010 12:37 PM

I also rate King Richard as one of the worst kings England ever had, if not the worst.
How long was he in England when he was king? I believe it was not more than 6 months.
King John had to find the money to pay for Richard playing crusader and then his ransom and that way got the reputation of being Bad King John, someone had to rule England if the King was away. Also we have the little detail of Berengaria the neglected wife.
Very dashing and a pretty story of Blondel finding him but a very bad king in times when Kings actually ruled countries.

Osipi 07-08-2010 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wisteria (Post 1108444)
I also rate King Richard as one of the worst kings England ever had, if not the worst.
How long was he in England when he was king? I believe it was not more than 6 months.

Actually if I remember my history correctly (and trust me... I am no intellectual when it comes to history), it was after the conquest of William the Conqueror in 1066 and William became King of England that things drastically changed. French became the language of the court, administration and culture and would remain so for about 300 years. It wasn't uncommon that the King of England ruled from the provinces of France as we know it now as that is where the Court was.

Vecchiolarry 07-08-2010 02:35 PM

Hi,

Ironic isn't it, that a huge statue of Richard on horseback is erected outside Parliament in London???
I often wondered who thought of that and who approved it....

Eleanor of Aquitaine disliked John because John mostly supported his father.
Also, Richard was Eleanor's favourite child.

Larry

Wisteria 07-08-2010 02:54 PM

After the Conquest William built castles and introduced the feudal system to
England. From being the illegitimate son of Robert of Normandy he became King of England and brought the French language to the Court. As to him reigning from France, I have my doubts, but he definitely made sure he had an eye on both France and England.
Richard when he became king, completely neglected England, he was off on adventure, a dashing knight with a mission and so felt completely at ease with his conscious, he was doing God´s work, and no doubt, having a jolly good time while he was doing it.
His brother John was left to slog away at the actual work of making the country work and paying for his brother´s extravagances and as happens quite often not getting any credit for it, not even in history books. People would rather believe the wonderful story of Robin Hood and Good King Richard than the real story of an absent king. I believe the English were very lucky to have John to do the reigning, but John had to pay for everything and that meant only one thing, taxes and of course the hated tax collectors.
I can understand how the people longed for a saviour and so had this fantasy
Good King who would come back and life would be good and easy.

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 04:38 PM

@ Osipi

You are right. In the middle ages all kings have to go when the pope calls them for crusade, they didnt have a choice. So Richard couldnt say no to this crusade, because then he wold be very unpopular in the whole europe, by the other kings and the nobility. This was really a trainforced (i hope this is the right word, in germany we say zugzwang), and a king like richard couldnt afford to say no, when all other kings go on crusade.
The people of the middle ages had an ofter thinking than we today. for tem the crusades were gods will, and someone who dont follow gods will would be a very bad human for them.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 05:07 PM

There were a number of crusades and yet only one King of England actually went so there was no need for the Kings to go if the Pope called. In fact most Kings stayed at home and did their jobs of ruling their countries. Richard went because he wanted to do so not because he had to. There were at least 7 crusades in different centuries and different reigns but only one king felt the necessity to desert his people and take his army there in person. Most other kings throughout the invasions by the Europeans of the Holy Land (and that is all it was - aggressive war against people of a different religion) gave support to some of their own people going but to a large extent realised that their role was to stay in their own countries and do the job God had called them to do - rule their God-given country - but not Richard - no he left his country, bled it dry, and then let his hated little brother take all the blame both during his reign and then afterwards.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2010 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EleanorOfAquitaine (Post 1108395)
And i read, that Queen Eleanor does not like her youngest son...and a man, which was even disliked by his mother must be a very bad man.

John was hated by his mother and brothers because he remained loyal to his father when the marriage between his parents collapsed and when his mother encouraged his brothers to lead a rebellion against their father. Henry hated Richard by the way - so what does that say about Richard - a son and heir whose father hated him - why? because Richard lead a rebellion and supported his mother. It isn't fair to say that there is something wrong with a son who is hated by his mother if you don't also acknowledge that there is something wrong with a man who hates and is hated by his father and that was Richard.

Of course medieval Kings were ruthless (don't think that Richard wasn't ruthless - to be a knight meant you had to be ruthless - it wasn't just being nice to each other but also being as nasty as you can be and get away with and Richard was that) - they had to be in order to keep their crowns as they were always facing unruly nobles who would challenge the authority of the monarch if given a chance which is why they were all so ruthless and imprisoned and killed anyone, regardless of gender or age, who posed a threat in any way. That continued really until the Restoration and the end of the King's having sole decision making and they all did it not just John (or Henry VIII - whose daughters killed just as many people)

Wisteria 07-08-2010 05:15 PM

:previous:

Exactly, a very true description of what happened. Richard had the fun of doing what he liked best (fighting it seems) and John has gone down in history as Bad King John. A cognomen that will stick until the end of time I suppose.

EleanorOfAquitaine 07-08-2010 05:21 PM

[QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1108580]From english kings richard was the only who goes on crusade, thats true.
But in germany we had a lot of kings and empereors on crusade.
Empereor Friedrich Barbarossa dies in third crusade, and his son didnt co home, he makes the crusade further, altaugh the death of his father.
And the other son, Heinrich VI died also on crusade a few years later.

And most of french kings joined the crusades to.

Richard was only one of a lot of kings and empereors who went to the holy land. And you must grant richard, that he endet his crusade and make peace with saladin instead of fightin further.

@wisteria

this cognomen is Johns own fault. He was bad, he murdered helpless woman and children. But Richard was mostly of time a mercy king.
he even didnt punish john for colluded against him.

Hereditary Thane 07-08-2010 05:33 PM

There appears to be many victims of royal propaganda here. I am not a revisionist, however historically we should look at events in context. The barons who supported William of Normandy were from Flanders, Britany, and Normandy. Indeed after the victory at Senlac some of these gangster barons never saw their English baronies, but made sure their bailifs exacted rents and taxes. The Norman ruling family saw England as a milch cow. The irony is that 30% of the land in England is still owned by the descendants of these militarists.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises