Talk:John, King of England

Papal interdict

Think I should note here that I don't agree with mentioning the excommunication without mentioning church services being banned for six years in the lead section. The latter was a step further from the former, which ultimately resulted from the archbishop dispute. It felt like something that was missing. GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I, however, think it's unneeded detail in the lead of the article and thus, as my edit summary said, not an improvement. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe then it may be better to remove details about the excommunication and interdict from the lead altogether in said case scenario. GOLDIEM J (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The excommunication was the main event. It was something that rarely happened to entire kingdoms, and when it did, it had consequences. In this case, the interdiction of church services was one of those consequences. No reason to mention discrete sub-topics in a lead that's already substantial. IMHO. SN54129 16:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the Pope banned church services first and then excommunicated the King second. These are the two events presently mentioned in the article lead, as it does not mention an entire sovereign state being excommunicated. So for this reason, I believe that the interdict was the main event. I think it would be more appropriate to remove details about the excommunication of the King rather than the interdict, as the interdict indeed had consequences. But given that my edit hasn't been reverted for a couple of days, it comes across to me that most fellow contributers aren't thinking twice anyway. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

I still think that if we're going to mention one or the other in the lead, we should mention the Papal interdict instead of John's excommunication. It has previously been mentioned that we should reserve the lead for major and consequential events, but I wholeheartedly believe that the interdict was more major than the excommunication of the king, especially considering that the latter happened after the former which implies that it was an extension of the other. GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No mention of the 2011 Film Ironclad with Paul Giamatti As King John??

Future students of King John might be well to watch this film as at least a glimpse of the extreme personal violence of the Era and the cruelty and temper of King John offset somewhat by by his anger and frustration due to the resistance of those who would not recognize the traditional rights of Kings. John is not a sympathetic character in this film, but is depicted as a rational man determined to be a King in a manner that he determined a King should be and that cruelty was a necessary object lesson to ensure that the rights of King's were maintained. He seems burdened by his responsibilities but determined to fight through the resistance to his role as a traditional king that protects the freedom and rights of the common man by absolute authority over him and to whom no act is unlawful concerning a King. This echoes the opinion of Charles I who stuck to his conviction "that no man is free unless a King has his rights." 2603:8080:D508:BA1C:C880:F453:72BE:72A5 (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It is listed in Cultural depictions of John, King of England. This article could be expanded with a discussion of which cultural depictions give the most accurate portrait of John (if reliable sources exist), but it is not a subject for the main article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please can we reopen the discussion concerning the interdict? Are we going to acknowledge its seriousness or not? GOLDIEM J (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Loss of Normandy - mistake or grammar problem?

In that section is written "Accompanied by William de Roches, his seneschal in Anjou, he swung his mercenary army rapidly south to protect her." He is John, yet William des Roches was actually Arhur of Brittany's seneschal of Anjou. Either the author misread the sources or the construction of the sentence is faulty. Beside "captured the entire rebel leadership at the battle of Mirebeau." Rebel leadership? Was not John a usurper fighting off the legitimate heir of the throne, namely his nephew Arthur?

No, just ignore this, the entire section is full of problems. I need to read that incredible unique source used here as it mostly gives an account that I never previously read (rebel forces, Eleonor captured at Mirebeau, Desroches ally of John and so on) and assess it by comparing it to other modern publications.

EDIT

Well, I checked the online version but could not access every part. The book is very interesting on a number of other aspects but I can’t make out which sources he used for Mirebeau. Still, I think Turner confused several episodes.

1. It’s been clear, so far, that the rescue party at Mirebeau was led at the very last moment by lords from Aquitaine as Aimery viscount of Thouars and the lord of Mauleon, suggesting John wasn’t able to send any support from Normandy. These details appear in the history of both families. And they are noteworthy because Aimery was Guy de Thouars’s elder brother, which means he was late Duchess Constance’s brother-in-law. His intervention at Mirebeau led to the capture of her son, young duke Arthur, which, in turn, led to Arthur’s assassination. Quite a Shakespearean tragic quirk.

2. William des Roches had been appointed seneschal of Anjou by Arthur of Brittany in 1199 who was officially acknowledged as count of Anjou in 1200. Des Roches’s biographical elements available show that he consistently served his overlord’s interests, criticizing and even chiding Philip of France after le Goulet and trying to smooth out relations between Arthur and John after that. His reaction to Arthur’s capture actually explains how Anjou (Anjou, Maine and Touraine) weighed on Philip’s side. Anjou leading figures as des Roches and Craon were very active, capturing John’s allies in Aquitaine (Thouars and Mauleon, 1207) and fighting at La Roche-aux-Moines in 1214. They never changed allegiance, unlike some Aquitaine nobles who repeatedly did. (By the way, the des Roches family is from Chateau-du-Loir in Maine, not in Anjou - describing him as an ‘Angevin’ lord can only be understood as a reference to the wider province of Anjou consisting of the counties of Anjou, of Maine and of Touraine but is quite inaccurate)

3. The history of Brittany keep no trace nor memory of any English attack during John’s reign, only his failed attempt in 1213 and his repeated blackmail over Eleonor’s sequestration during nearly 10 years. Yet, chroniclers did mention an attack led by a seneschal of Anjou in Brittany. But that was in 1197 or 1198 during Duchess Constance’s captivity after Richard the Lionheart had her treacherously abducted, not in 1202 after Eleanor’s abduction. The seneschal was Robert de Tourneham, not des Roches. But he was indeed leading an army of mercenaries --the infamous Cottereaux of Richard’s friend Marchadet/Mercadier-- to try and capture 9-year-old Arthur. A battle may have been fought near Carhaix, but Tourneham did not succeed in capturing Arthur. That was not the first (brutal) attack against Brittany during Richard’s reign but probably the last. And that’s the only episode where a seneschal of Anjou, English mercenaries, a captive Breton princess, and Brittany appear associated, and I think this is where the confusion came from. How and why would require more research yet.

Eventually, I think that labelling Bretons “rebel” is a purely subjective perspective, not a historical one as it doesn’t correspond to any factual reality: Arthur was legitimately asserting his birthrights. According to Angevin and English feudal succession standards, Arthur and Eleonor, as children of John’s elder brother, had precedence over him. A fact that was further stated when Richard declared adopting Arthur. The fact that the succession was disputed by John with his mother’s support could arguably be labelled illegitimate, all the more since Anjou, Touraine, Maine and some influential families of Aquitaine supported Arthur (Angouleme’s Taillefer). As a matter of fact, I think I remember reading that the London annals recorded, on Eleonor’s death in 1241, the fact that the legitimate heir of the English crown had died. i.e. Eleonor could have been the first queen of English history.

But stating who was right or who was wrong by using such words as ‘usurper’ or ‘rebel’ may not make sense from an analysis perspective. Mostly, Philip of France successfully exploited the disputed succession in order to conquer back Normandy and, with the addition of Anjou and the new alliance with the Duchy of Brittany, strengthened his position to the point of not only avoiding the disappearance of Capetian France but building up a real kingdom. Actually, he needed Brittany to fight John, which raises the question of his manipulative skills.

Nevertheless, in order to mention all and every perspective: after the abduction of Eleonor (who, by the way was not simply held prisoner several years, but nearly forty years until her death) and Arthur’s capture, nobles of Brittany -deprived of their princes- held a meeting of the Estates in Vannes in 1202 to discuss and vote retaliations against John. Again, it appears in historical accounts as well as family history of a large number of families in Brittany. “Retaliations” is the word consistently used in every account. Historical summaries in some peerage lists even mention this episode using this very word. From a historical perspective, this informs us on the perception people might have had of these events.

In conclusion, Arthur’s murder is actually the major reason of John’s continental failure, much more than any consideration about the merits of his military strategies.

Maeldan (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Was not John a usurper fighting off the legitimate heir of the throne, namely his nephew Arthur?

Huh? You can rebel against a usurper. 'Twas a dispute at the time.

He is John, yet William des Roches was actually Arhur of Brittany's seneschal of Anjou.

William de Roches famously switched allegiances from Arthur to John upon arriving with their meeting at Bourg-le-Roi in September 1199. Remsense诉 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, as I added above, des Roches famously criticised Philip on behalf of Arthur after le Goulet (1200) and acted in his name afterwards. "Rebel" means rising against an established government or authority and that, indeed could be a usurper, but that doesn't apply to a disputed succession since none of the pretenders could be considered an established authority over the other. Using this word clearly indicates a subjective account. Imo --Maeldan (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't seem too terribly intentional if you'd like to change it! Remsense诉 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)