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-35936.html)

XeniaCasaraghi 10-16-2013 02:01 AM

Richard I 'The Lionheart' (1157-1199)
 
I have seen on this board that some posters have a low opinion of the first King Richard and I wonder why. The only thing I know about Richard is crusades, he was his mothers favorite, and Robin Hood. Was Richard a good king or nay? Was John better or just as bad?

Osipi 10-16-2013 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1609409)
I have seen on this board that some posters have a low opinion of the first King Richard and I wonder why. The only thing I know about Richard is crusades, he was his mothers favorite, and Robin Hood. Was Richard a good king or nay? Was John better or just as bad?

Actually I think the reason why a lot see him as a different kind of King is because he was more of a warrior than a ruler. It was a time in history when actually the court of what we'd term the British court was actually in France hence why Richard the Lionheart (Richard Coeur de Lion) strove to do what many did back then. It was the time of the Templars and Crusades. It was a time of chivalry and the stuff that tales of the Holy Grail were made of. Of course there had to be a way to provide funds for his endeavors and a lot of it came from heavy taxation of the serfs working his lands back home. He was more involved in going into battle in the Crusades more so than what we'd see today as being an actual King and being available in England. I can see why a lot of folks back home would be grumbling. The nobles went to the crusades and the peasants/serfs were left to work to fund it all with an absentee King.

I'm NO way an expert on this but I do like the medieval times. To me, it seemed like the church came first. They were the main powers that be back then. Holy Roman Empire and all.

I'm sure there is a lot more information from our historians here that can fill in the gaps.

LauraS3514 10-16-2013 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1609409)
I have seen on this board that some posters have a low opinion of the first King Richard and I wonder why. The only thing I know about Richard is crusades, he was his mothers favorite, and Robin Hood. Was Richard a good king or nay? Was John better or just as bad?

Well, he only spent about six months of his ten-year reign in England - when he was crowned, and when he needed to ask Parliament for money. His Queen, Berenguela of Navarre, never set foot in England at all. England was just a small piece of his empire, and he much preferred Aquitaine when he was "at home."

Baroness of Books 10-16-2013 10:46 PM

Richard only considered England his cash cow to fund his crusades, so heavily taxed his people. As was mentioned upthread, he was a warrior first so spent the majority of his life on the battlefields.

XeniaCasaraghi 10-16-2013 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 1609652)
Well, he only spent about six months of his ten-year reign in England - when he was crowned, and when he needed to ask Parliament for money. His Queen, Berenguela of Navarre, never set foot in England at all. England was just a small piece of his empire, and he much preferred Aquitaine when he was "at home."

I'm sorry but I don't think that makes someone necessarily a bad king. If he indeed had an empire to fun then I don't fault him for not putting a lot of focus on the small parts of it. If that is his greatest crime than he is better than a few kings who spent all their time in England.

Iluvbertie 10-17-2013 01:12 AM

He sent England bankrupt to fund wars that didn't benefit England, or any other part of his empire but to stroke his own ego. He was selfish and totally uncaring about the pain and suffering he caused.

An Ard Ri 11-29-2013 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LauraS3514 (Post 1609652)
Well, he only spent about six months of his ten-year reign in England - when he was crowned, and when he needed to ask Parliament for money. His Queen, Berenguela of Navarre, never set foot in England at all. England was just a small piece of his empire, and he much preferred Aquitaine when he was "at home."

His Queen,Berengaria of Navarre was very much a neglected wife during Richards life and was very much eclipsed by Richards mother and sister Joan.After Richards death,her brother in law King John treated her very badly and rarely paid her pensions.

An Ard Ri 02-21-2014 08:54 AM

Richard the Lionhearted: Ja nuns hons pris

Richard the Lionhearted: Ja nuns hons pris - YouTube

Baroness of Books 02-21-2014 06:38 PM

Sharon Kay Penman's sequel to Lionheart, A King's Ransom, will be released on March 4. I cannot wait!

A King's Ransom: Sharon Kay Penman: 9780399159220: Amazon.com: Books

An Ard Ri 03-05-2014 02:58 PM

The Face of Berengaria of Navarre

The Face of Berengaria of Navarre (Artistic Reconstruction) - YouTube

US Royal Watcher 03-05-2014 08:15 PM

Fascinating, An Ard Ri. Thank you.

CyrilVladisla 03-22-2014 07:28 PM

Richard I's mother, Queen Eleanor referred to her daughter-in-law as "Queen Berengaria" without adding the affectionate "dilectissima" or "carissima" appended to the names of her daughters.
In Kings & Queens of England, Nigel Cawthorne wrote:

Richard I regarded his realm as little more than a source of revenue for his crusades. 'I would have sold London itself if I could have found a rich enough buyer,' he said.

An Ard Ri 04-06-2014 02:54 PM

The Lionheart died on this day,6th of April 1199.Tomb effigy of Richard I from Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou, France.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_I_effigy.jpg

Ana Von Cleves 05-30-2014 07:22 PM

I'm sorry, but I find that depiction of Berengaria horrible and likely has no basis in reality.

I understand that many scholars also disagree with this sort of "forensic" sculpting. Even when a skull is used as the basis, there is so much of the face that is not governed by the skull. The shape of the nose and lips to name only two.

In my opinion this depiction is very masculine.

Ana

An Ard Ri 06-02-2014 06:11 PM

IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF RICHARD LIONHEART

WELCOME TO RICHARD LION HEART - Richard Lionheart and Châlus in the Limousin

An Ard Ri 07-23-2014 06:09 PM

The Massacre at Acre: Mark of a Blood-thirsty King?

The Massacre at Acre: Mark of a Blood-thirsty King?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises