MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Good King John? (British History)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am currently reading the Approved Orthodox Text for the Robin Hood/Templar period, "England Under The Norman and Angevin Kings, 1075-1225" (OUP) which I recommend to anyone who needs a good intro to the period (which turned out to include me!). The most interesting underlying message is that King John was the geezer that introduced most of the things we think of when it comes to Modern Britain, including Parliament itself. I cannot yet make up my mind whether this is because he was very good or very bad.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

[This was written originally for the Daily Mail cos they ran a rave review of THOBR and cos the BBC was running a Robin Hood series at the time. "Don't call us, we'll call you," came the stern reply.]

As we spend our Saturday evenings wondering whether we really ought to be watching Robin Hood, let us consider why we tend to do so even when there are no kids around to justify it. We know it's supposed to be an Important English Myth so we can always manage to ignore for the moment that honestly, at our age, we really ought not to be bothering ourselves about who is fighting whom in a late twelfth century East Midland wood.

Of course as usual we soon recognise that all the characters are bang up to date. Robin is The New Man. He's terribly opposed to actually killing anybody (except the Poor Bloody Infantry who get dispatched in droves but whose faces are always carefully obscured by Star War helmets).

Marian is the standard Lady Bountiful With Attitude but it is the baddies who are really interesting. The Sheriff is quite a beguiling character, he actually entertains us with genuine dilemmas of 12th Century Public Administration. 'And who's going to pay the taxes to feed these starving peasants?' and 'That's all very well, Robin, but how else am I to get the peasants to obey the law?'

Guy of Gisborne is developing into an altogether novel stereotype. A Norman with brains but no brawn -- even when he manages to surround Robin and his very few Merry Men with the forces of law'n'order, the outlaws always seem to win ten-nil after the briefest of struggles.

But the first thing we should think about is 'Are we rooting for the right side?' Here's the calculation. Let's take every society that has ever existed anywhere in the world from the year dot right up until 1200 AD. Let's now rate them according to criteria that are the really important ones looked at from the point of view of the ordinary folk.

These are:
One, material prosperity. Can you feed your family with a bit left over for some wassailing?
Two, personal security. Can you and your family enjoy the material prosperity in relative tranquility?
Three, freedom from foreign invasion. Is this state of affairs likely to continue into the indefinite future?

Now, using those three criteria, let's take every society that we have enough historical information about to form a judgement. And out of the, let's say thousand or so available, decide which is numero uno. Which one you would personally choose to live in if you were an ordinary peasant. And the answer is....wait for it... England, East Midlands, end of the twelfth century. That's right, it's a fact, ask any historian and he'll say, 'Yes, well, it's certainly right up there.'

And who do we have to thank for this admittedly relatively blissful state? Who is it that is providing all this material prosperity, law and order and national security? Why, the Sheriff of Nottingham, Guy of Gisborne and Good King John.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
We know it's supposed to be an Important English Myth


Why is Robin Hood an 'Important English Myth'?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As far as I can see, which in the greenwood is not very far, this can be one of -- or a combination of -- two peculiarly British archetypes (write in if they are not peculiarly British). The first is the outlaw theme. The reason that this may be peculiarly British is because traditionally, being an island and not prey to passing hordes, the "government" is not thought of as a necessary evil but as something to be somewhat despised. This would make it a very modern theme (ie dating from the high medieval period) because obviously before then Britain was a prey to passing hordes. (A variant, I suppose, would be that "government" was always one bunch of foreigners or another so worthy of hostile folk tales.)

The other great "British" archetype is Herne the Hunter. But I really dunno much about him. Does anyone? It should be remembered (too?) that the Green Man phenomenon in Gothic cathedrals broke out at roughly the same time as the emergence of the Robin Hood motif.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

..two peculiarly British archetypes (write in if they are not peculiarly British). The first is the outlaw theme.

English, rather than British? There's a forest connection with Robin and Herne the Hunter, rural v. urban or "true" earthy peasant v. effete landowning nob (good old class system). There's a sense of economic as well as social injustice at the root of the legend, hunting deer to feed your family rather than for aristocratic sport. Perhaps the outlaw story is a reaction to the poncey French with their tales of courtly love and chivalry, every burgeoning nation needs its folk heroes, Robin might be inspired by or vying with continental counterparts like Roland (Chanson de) and Rodriguez (El Cid).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I should have made it clearer about the outlawry theme since all cultures have outlaw-as-hero myths. The point about Robin Hood is that he is the national myth and to 'choose' such a one is a British characteristic. (I'm guessing here on the basis of not knowing of any others but if anyone nows of any I'd like to hear.) The usual choice is a truly national archetype like William Tell (or indeed El Cid).

English, rather than British?

I was wondering that myself. Of course the other national myth is King Arthur who is fatally tinged with Celticness. The Scots, the English-speaking Scots, have William Wallace and other true-life desperadoes. But actually I am not sure whether Robin Hood is not as acceptable to Scots as, say, Kentishmen. Are there Robin Hood ballards in Inglis?

There's a forest connection with Robin and Herne the Hunter, rural v. urban or "true" earthy peasant v. effete landowning nob (good old class system).

I don't entirely accept this. The point about forests is that nobody lives there. A woodland habitat is as alien to farming folk as to city-slickers (cf all the folk tales of people going into woods and having nasty things happen to them). Note also how carefully Robin Hood, Maid Marian and the various Merry Men are plugged firmly into mainstream life (earls, ladies, miller's sons, friars etc) -- they are not in any sense natural forest-dwellers.

There's a sense of economic as well as social injustice at the root of the legend, hunting deer to feed your family rather than for aristocratic sport.

mmm...so why are Robin and Marian such grand folk? Of course there was a national groundswell against the Norman/Angevin intensification of the Forest Laws which might be the immediate cause though this had all pretty much played out by the time the Legend started gaining major air-time in the fourteenth century.

Perhaps the outlaw story is a reaction to the poncey French with their tales of courtly love and chivalry, every burgeoning nation needs its folk heroes, Robin might be inspired by or vying with continental counterparts like Roland (Chanson de) and Rodriguez (El Cid).

This is a good line. When a language goes literate there is always such a need (cf the Iliad/Odyssey) but again it might be claimed that it is peculiarly English/British that the national mythos comes out of rude balladry rather than the considered pens of toffs.
Send private message
Stuart



View user's profile
Reply with quote

In 1598 Anthony Munday a contemporary of Shakespeare cited Robin Hood as the rightful Earl of Huntingdon during the reign of Richard I Plantagenet.

Not long after Dr. William Stuckey of the Society of Antiquaries maintained that Robin Hood was better known as Robert Fitz Odo.

An early 17th Century manuscript that was part of the famous Sloane Manuscripts confirms Robin's date of birth in the year 1160 and associates him with a place called Loxley, which was later assumed to be in Yorkshire.

In 1864 the historian Somerset Herald in discussions with Pursuivant of Arms James Planche, discovered that the Loxley of Robin Hood was not in Yorkshire but in Warwickshire and that the 1196 Register of Arms (during Richard the Lionheart's reign) stated that 'Fitz Odo of Loxley is no longer a knight'.
Send private message
Stuart



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The extract below is from Laurence Gardner's Realm of the Ring Lords:

In tracing the historical Robin Hood, it should be borne in mind that Robin is an alternative for the name Robert

The questions which immediately arise are: Was there a nobleman called Robert who was at odds with King John (1199-1216) and who would fall into the category of being a Wood Lord. If so, was this nobleman somehow connected with Loxley in Warwickshire? Was he the legal Pretender to the Earldom of Huntingdon, a declared enemy of the established Church, and might he have legitimately used the name Fitz Odo or Fitzooth? The answer to each and all of these questions is 'Yes'.
Loxley lies a little south-east of Stratford-upon-Avon, close to the old Warwickshire-Oxfordshire border. Although the Earls of Warwick and Oxford appeared to get along well enough, border territories were always subject to some dispute in matters of management and general administration, while the Earls of Warwick and Oxford both had houses in each other's domain.
The Earls of Oxford from July 1142 were the senior-line descendants of Princess Melusine and Rainfroi de Verrieres en Forez, beginning with Alberic, the son of Aubrey the Comte de Guisnes. Alberic's second son became the 3rd Earl of Oxford in 1214 after the death of his elder brother-and this 3rd Earl's name was Robert, who had under wardship the lands and person of a certain William Fitzoath. Robert's own family name of de Verrieres en Forez had been shortened by that time to de Vere.

Cokayne's Complete Peerage (under 'Oxford') explains that in 1142 Robert's father had been granted a choice of royal charters Empress Matilda (the mother of King Henry II Plantagenet), who expressed her preference that he should become Earl Cambridge. However, located within this newly perceived Cambridgeshire territory was the minor-shire the Earldom of Huntingdon which, at that time, was temporarily held by King David of Scots, who was not happy to become a vassal of the House of de Vere. Resultantly, as a diplomatic expedient, Alberic elected to become Earl of Oxford instead.
.
The story of the Earldom of Huntingdon began in Saxon times with Harold Godwinson of Wessex, who later became King II and died at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The fact that from 1090 Huntingdon was the heritage of the Flemish use of Vermandois (to which the family of Vere was related), with King David of Scots becoming a joint trustee by way of marriage in 1114. At that time there were fierce conflicts between the Scots and English, as an outcome of which David saw his opportunity to claim Huntingdon for Scotland when his son Henry came of age before the young heir of Vermandois.
What Robert de Vere recognized after his father's death in 1194, was that Empress Matilda's 1142 offer concerning the Earldom of Cambridge had been very cleverly worded, even though his father had chosen not to act upon it. As detailed in the Register, Matilda had offered Cambridgeshire to Alberic 'unless that county was held by the King of Scots' - which of course it was not. The Scots' claim applied only to the inherent Earldom of Huntingdon. On that account, when Alberic died (leaving his elder son, Aubrey, to succeed as the 2nd Earl of Oxford), Robert - not realizing that Oxford might become his one day when his brother died without a son - claimed his legal right of pretension to the Earldom of Huntingdon.

In the course of this, Robert's elder brother Aubrey, the 2nd Earl, was made Sheriff of Essex by King John but, while he was away in Ireland, England came under interdict of the Church and the King was excommunicated. All Aubrey's worldly goods, including his family's Hedingham Castle in Essex were confiscated, while the bishops (to whose doctrines King John had refused to submit) denounced Aubrey as 'an evil counsellor of the King'.

King John, unlike his crusading Catholic brother Richard I, was not prepared under any circumstances to cater to the whims of the clergy and their puppet barons, who were levying extortionate taxes from the people. Meanwhile, John endeavoured to hold the Plantagenet reins intact, maintaining his own courts of justice outside the Norman-implemented feudal structure, and this made him very unpopular with the feudal lords. In the event, after a row with the Pope over who should be Archbishop of Canterbury, John fell foul of that very document which bound the monarchy beneath the Pope whether he liked it or not--the Donation of Constantine. Consequently, the Church finally won the day at Runnymede on 15 June 1215, when John was obliged to sign the Magna Charta (Great Charter), formally vesting the powers of his kingship in the Church and the Norman barons.
The Magna Charta is probably the most devastating document ever to be thrust upon the people of England for it removed, for all time, the protection of their King and his officers, establishing a positive Church-fronted, feudal class system with no room for manoeuvre. But, this whole course of events has been wrapped in the usual veil of strategically portrayed Christian history, so that King John enters our schoolrooms as one of the nation's 'bad guys', while his hooligan brother, Richard I, who spent hardly any time in England during his supposed ten-year reign, is portrayed as a champion of virtue!

What happened after Aubrey de Vere lost his inheritance to the Church, and subsequently died, was that his brother Robert was left to fight for reclamation - not only of the Oxford title and Castle Hedingham, but also for the forestlands settled within the Sheriffdom of Essex, which were under the stewardship of the family of Fitzoath. In this regard, Cokayne reports that on 23 and 24 October 1214, the castles of Canfield and Hedingham were restored to Robert, and that he paid 1000 marks for the return of his brother's lands and for the land and heirs of William Fitzoath. For some reason which is not made clear in the records, Robert became one of the Charter Guardians after the King's signing at Runnymede - but his involvement in this may have been the price of his family's reinstatement. After signing the Magna Charta, however, King John issued a writ against Robert, charging him with treachery, whereupon Robert sought assistance from Prince Louis of France, urging him to wrest the Crown of England. But, along with the other twenty-four Charter Guardians (who were then dispensable), Robert was promptly excommunicated by the Pope since King John's actions were now sanctioned by the Magna Charta itself. At this, John seized Robert's lands in Buckinghamshire, along with Castle Hedingham and the Oxfordshire estates, leaving the depleted nobleman simply as Robert of Fitzoath.

It was at this stage in 1216 that, as the Register of Peerage If relates, the excommunicated of Robert/Robin - descendant heir of Aubrey, Steward of the Royal Forest, Heritor of Fitzoath of Loxley and claimant to the Earldom of Huntingdon took up arms against King John, having been divested of his family entitlements by the Crown.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
The other great "British" archetype is Herne the Hunter. But I really dunno much about him. Does anyone? It should be remembered (too?) that the Green Man phenomenon in Gothic cathedrals broke out at roughly the same time as the emergence of the Robin Hood motif.

I too am interested in Herne, info on him is a bit thin on the ground though. His ghost is said to haunt Windsor Gardens (forest?), and the tree he hung himself from is said to still be there (complete with rope indentation!) Apart from this, he seems to be some misremembered old god, I think someone has equated him with Cernunnus.

Also, wasn't the green man thing all proved to be a fallacy a few years back? That there never was a "green man" in paganism? Might just be me. Do you remember the Robin Hood series from the 80's? They had Robin as the son of Herne, and Robin and his men were clearly Pagan, and they had a supernatural element to them. furthermore, Robin was almost a byword for "Devil" in the middle ages. Robin Goodfellow springs to mind.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
Pam Bryson



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The most interesting underlying message is that King John was the geezer that introduced most of the things we think of when it comes to Modern Britain, including Parliament itself. I cannot yet make up my mind whether this is because he was very good or very bad.


That's interesting - I had always thought that Parliament really got going under Richard II and Simon de Montfort.

But I suppose the question really is "how do you define a good/bad King?"

John was obviously not a very nice man (certainly not the sort to take home to meet the parents). He was prone to hysterical bouts of rage, and was so crooked he could (to steal a phrase) hide behind a spiral staircase. Further John stole the 12 year old bethrothed of one of his closest allies, causing him to rebel against him. (Hugh had been chivalously waiting for Isobelle to grow up before he consummated the marriage - John had no such scruples.)

John also raised taxes (to pay for his unsuccessful wars) and lost most, if not all, of the French lands he inherited from his brother.

On the other hand this general uselessness prevented the monarch becoming very rich and all powerful, leading in the very long term to Parliamentary democracy.

So, if you are living at the time you want a strong king (because he is then the only one who exploits you) but long term, a weak one is better (because, while this means that the population is exploited by any Baron who fancies it, the distribution of power prevents one person gaining too much).


Three, freedom from foreign invasion. Is this state of affairs likely to continue into the indefinite future?


When John died England had been invaded by the Dauphin, so he didn't meet this criteria.
Send private message
Childermass



View user's profile
Reply with quote

One, material prosperity. Can you feed your family with a bit left over for some wassailing?
Two, personal security. Can you and your family enjoy the material prosperity in relative tranquility?
Three, freedom from foreign invasion. Is this state of affairs likely to continue into the indefinite future?


One way of looking at 'material prosperity' would be to compare wages with the cost of basics. This has been done more than once. Using 1200 as a base point the outcomes show a decline from 100 to 50 from 1200 to 1320, an increase from 50 to 170 from 1320 to 1470, a decline back to 70ish from 1470 to 1640 and from then on a gradual recovery back to 100 at 1840 when the new world order impinged forever upon the old realities. These are big changes.

During that same period kings and queens reigned for, on average, 20 years apiece (leaving out the very short reigns and Richard Cromwell).

There are any number of explanations for these movements - pestilence, war, the climate and technology all being popular - but the time comparisons make it unlikely that it was individual rulers.

So 'good' or 'bad' King John was probably not responsible for 'material prosperity', even if he thought he was.
Send private message Send e-mail
Childermass



View user's profile
Reply with quote

When John died England had been invaded by the Dauphin, so he didn't meet this criteria.


My old history teacher told me William the Bastard was the last person to invade England. What I'm sure he meant to say was that he was the last to do so successfully as there were landings all over the place for hundreds of years. Characterising them as 'invasions' rather overplays them and underplays William's (or the Viking's) achievements. (He'd obviously chosen not to count the next William's foray).

The Dauphin was invited to invade by the usual crew of disaffected noblemen, he turned up with a few hearties and went to live in London for a while. I doubt whether Mr and Mrs Peasant-Farmer ever heard about it, much less ran in fear of their lives to the hills.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

When John died England had been invaded by the Dauphin, so he didn't meet this criteria.

There is a critical difference that arises because England became a de facto nation-state by virtue of losing its French territories (under John). When the French, or anyone else, invade England they just wander about until it's time to go home. That's because England is a nation-state and basically it's untouchable and immortal. If you wanna stay permanently you have to do what the Dutch did in 1688 and become English.

By complete contrast, when the English, or anyone else, invade medieval France they can stay indefinitely by just carving out an appanage because pre-nation state countries have no particular sense of territorial integrity.

These are big changes.


I don't believe a word of it. I never believe theories that show a) odd things happening when we don't know the facts but b) the odd things suddenly ceasing to happen as soon as we do know the facts.

So 'good' or 'bad' King John was probably not responsible for 'material prosperity'

The reason England is always richer than its European (and world) contemporaries is because, as a near-island, it doesn't have to spend as much on defence. This has nothing to do, I agree, with King John. I just like pointing out that good things tend to come from bad men.

even if he thought he was.

An odd thing to say. I've never thought of Norman and Angevin kings bothering with such modern notions one way or the other. But worth thinking about since royal psychology is a significant and underexplored subject. The idea of The Good King of course goes back to and beyond The Bible.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Childermass wrote:
This has been done more than once. Using 1200 as a base point the outcomes show a decline from 100 to 50 from 1200 to 1320, an increase from 50 to 170 from 1320 to 1470, a decline back to 70ish from 1470 to 1640 and from then on a gradual recovery back to 100 at 1840....


...riiiiiiiiiight.......
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Childermass wrote:
The Dauphin was invited to invade by the usual crew of disaffected noblemen, he turned up with a few hearties and went to live in London for a while.

I didn't know about the Dauphin's 'invasion'. John wasn't quite a dead loss if the Dauphin went back empty-handed. Sounds like it was showing the barons had the upper hand. Sign, or else.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group