Bad King John I: The worst British monarch in history?
Bad King John I was ineffective, unsuccessful, unlikeable and cruel…so why does he still have his defenders? And do they have a case?
Image: The tomb of King John I inside Worcester Cathedral | David Winn-Morgan / Shutterstock.com
Not too many British kings are bequeathed an epithet, but ‘Bad King John’ is about as simple as it is self-explanatory. John lied, betrayed and murdered his way to the throne, before invoking such wrath among his subjects that he was forced into signing a document which changed the world in so many ways, the Magna Carta.
In the last 100 years, historians have sometimes attempted to portray John as unfairly maligned and misrepresented. However, a man who lost huge swathes of his kingdom, got his whole country excommunicated by the Pope, alienated his barons and mercilessly tortured and killed countless people surely deserves the title of 'bad', in almost every sense of the word.
We’ll take a deeper dive into the sins and slaughters perpetrated by this violent tyrant below… but if you enjoy such content, make sure you don’t miss the explosive new Sky HISTORY series, Killer Kings available from Monday, 16th June.
Inauspicious beginnings
John was the fifth (legitimate) son of Henry II and because of his low status in the pecking order, he was rather cruelly termed 'Lackland' (because he was unlikely to inherit any lands or titles) by his own father. It wasn’t the last time that John would earn an unusual nickname during his reign.
It seems Henry would later go on to try and atone by gifting some of his brother Richard’s land to his youngest son, who had by now become his favourite. Richard, himself perhaps better known by his nickname 'Lionheart', did not take kindly to this suggestion and war broke out between the family.
After years of struggle, John would eventually betray his father and seek forgiveness from his brother, which was duly granted. However, when the Lionheart was captured on his way home from the Crusades, John saw his chance. He secretly negotiated with Richard’s captors to keep him so that John could assume the throne himself. The plan didn’t work and Richard returned, though he once again let John’s transgressions slide.
When Richard finally did pop his clogs after a routine siege went awry, John was named as his successor. Even this wasn’t without scandal and bloodshed, though. Arthur, the son of his elder (deceased) brother Geoffrey, laid a claim to the throne, so John promptly captured and killed him. Whether the execution came at his own hand or simply by his orders is unknown, but he was heavily involved regardless.
Treachery, cruelty and a downright wimp
We’ve already seen ample demonstration of John’s treachery, having stabbed both his father and his siblings (and their offspring) in the back on several occasions (figuratively, if not literally). He was also extremely cruel at times.
As well as dispatching his nephew Arthur, John also rounded up 22 of the knights who had supported him. Instead of treating them with the chivalry expected of the time, he promptly starved them to death. On another occasion, John imprisoned the wife and son of a one-time friend, William de Briouze, and starved the pair of them as well. Tragically, their bodies were found in a cannibalistic embrace, the mother gnawing the cheeks of her son.
Perhaps most unforgivably of all, John was a terrible warmonger. As a teenager, he was sent to Ireland to quell unrest there, but ended up mocking the locals and being chased out of town. When he inherited the English crown, he also inherited the French provinces of Aquitane, Anjou, Brittany and Normandy. Within five years, he had ceded the lot to King Phillip of France, earning his second moniker, 'Soft-sword'.
John did try to make amends by reinvading in 1214, but the expensive campaign was nothing short of a disaster. He personally shied away from the battlefield himself, while his forces in the north lost the pivotal Battle of Bouvines. It was this final straw which broke the camel’s back and sparked a rebellion at home.
Untrustworthy to the end
The barons, who were by now fed up with being taxed through the teeth, launched a rebellion. They raised an army with the backing of the Pope (who John had offended by barring his choice for Archbishop of Canterbury from England, thus leading to the whole country being excommunicated) and cornered him at Runnymede.
John was forced into signing the Magna Carta, or 'Great Charter'. This historic document basically tried to curb John’s powers and place a check on his unruly behaviour. Although he signed it, he had no intention of keeping his oath and weaselled out of it within weeks, sparking further war.
With his nobles deserting him in droves and the French king finally landing a force on British soil, John was fighting a losing battle. The stress affected his health and he contracted dysentery in October 1216. He retreated to Newark Castle, where he would die a few days later and leave his nine-year-old son, Henry III, as one of the youngest kings to ascend the English throne.
It's telling that a contemporary chronicler, Matthew Paris, commented: 'Hell itself is made fouler by the presence of John.'
An unconvincing case for the defence
In the 20th century, certain historians have made a case for John. They claim that the chroniclers who disparage him belonged to the clergy, with which John was at loggerheads throughout his reign. That’s certainly true for Matthew Paris, but not so for laymen such as troubadour Bertran de Born or the nobleman Robert of Béthune, who actually fought on John’s side. Neither had anything good to say about the King.
John’s defenders also argue that he inherited an impossible situation. Richard had spent all but six months of his 10-year reign abroad, fighting in the Crusades and repeatedly losing and regaining his territories in France. Doing so had built up sizable debts, which fell on John’s shoulders. However, John wasn’t shy about squeezing out every last tax from his nobles, nor imposing unreasonable fines for frivolous charges.
Finally, team John proclaim that he was cruel, sure, but so were all the monarchs of his epoch. This type of whataboutery might hold some water, since there are numerous instances of other kings (including his illustrious brother Richard) acting ignobly. However, it’s the consistency and barbarity of John’s brutalities that set him apart.
This, along with his failures in other areas of his kingship, mean that John was fully deserving of the epithet that history has bestowed upon him. He was bad, any which way you look at it.
Want to explore more fascinating stories from history? Sign up to our newsletter today. Each week, you’ll receive features, interviews and news about exclusive Sky HISTORY shows like Killer Kings. It’s the newsletter for you if you love history as much as we do.
