Did Bad King John Desrve His Reputation Essay Example

also fell out with the pope in 1207.

They quarrelled about who should become the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Pope excommunicated John and put England under a Church law that stated that no christening or marriage would be legal until the time the pope said that they would be. Church law said that only christened people could get to Heaven while children born out of marriage were doomed to Hell. This placed people in England under a terrible strain and they blamed one person for this - John. However, a lot of people thought that John didn't deserve his reputation and wasn't as bad as some people made out.

WL Warren says that John had the ability to become a great ruler but never had the chance. In 1873, W Stubbs said that John had "the administrative ability of a great ruler but, from the moment he began to rule, rivals and traitors tried to cheat him out of his inheritance. As he wrestled with one problem, more enemies sprang upon his back. ". What's odd is that two years later (1875) W Stubbs quotes: "John was the worst of our kings, a faithless son and treacherous brother, a vain money-grabber with no redeeming features whatsoever. ".

Maurice Ashley said in 1972 that King John was a first class general and a ruler who devoloped English law. This might have been true, but it is more probable that Ashley just wanted to publish a different book, so that more people would buy it and he would earn more. Most of the evidence I have obtained points towards bad, but I think that

King John has been unfairly given a bad reputation. He might have done some bad things, but I don't think he deserved to go down in history as being bad. Perhapes it was not uncommon for kings to have their name tarnished when they are not alive to defend themselves!