# BritDopers: Why is King John so reviled?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 16, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487 "2009-12-16T15:50:17Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/21 "2009-12-17T01:09:01Z")
Some names are cursed to the Royals. Princess Diana wanted to name her first son “Oliver.” The Queen squelched that notion quickly. Something about a reviled Lord Protector…
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/22 "2009-12-17T01:56:46Z")
> [@APB](#):
>
> Didn’t stop George V naming his youngest son, [John](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_John_of_the_United_Kingdom). In fact, one rather suspects that most comment about any new Prince John would focus more on whether the name was a nod to his much more recent and now rather famous namesake.
And said Prince John was a sickly epileptic who died when he was only 13.
> [@Krokodil](#):
>
> Some names are cursed to the Royals. Princess Diana wanted to name her first son “Oliver.” The Queen squelched that notion quickly. Something about a reviled Lord Protector…
Oh THAT prick. 😉
But I thought that she too wanted to name William “John”, after her father.
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/23 "2009-12-17T02:33:52Z")
> [@code\_grey](#):
>
> I also see many references on the web to John offering to convert to Islam, become a vassal to a North African state in return for military assistance and convert his subjects along the way.
Almost certainly false. John ( like Richard before him ) made use of Muslim mercenaries and it was a nice propaganda tool to use aginst him.
> [@Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](#):
>
> I always did like Richard best.
Yeah, but then you went and backed John over your grandson, poor little Arthur, despite the seniority of his line, practically _forcing_ him to put you under siege at Mirebeau. Kindly grandmother my foot :p.
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/24 "2009-12-17T02:50:59Z")
> [@silenus](#):
>
> I thought that was more Richard’s thing. 😛
Hard to say - Richard’s case vis-a-vis his…_tastes_ in such things is very ambiguous. But you’re right that John at least liked the ladies ;).
But it was actually a very clever maneouver. He had to have been carefully shadowing Arthur to have moved as quickly as he did and he caught him and his Poitevin allies completely offguard inside the outerworks of the castle, where they were preparing to siege the inner keep where Eleanor was still holding out. They were pretty much captured while eating breakfast.
Then he threw that huge advantage away by murdering, or causing to be murdered, or at least allowing the rumor to spread that he had murdered Arthur. Major, major propaganda coup for Philip Augustus.
---
### Author:  [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/25 "2009-12-17T03:58:26Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#):
>
> One of the other reasons he is thought of so poorly is that by comparison with his brother and predecessor, Richard, he looked nothing like what the people thought a king should be.
Indeed [not](http://www.sconefest.com/john/blog/favorites/ustinov.jpg).
---
### Author:  [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/26 "2009-12-17T15:19:47Z")
Oh, c’mon. At least get the species right!: [http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/robin-hood/03-claude-rains.jpg](http://www.cedmagic.com/featured/robin-hood/03-claude-rains.jpg)
---
### Author:  [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/27 "2009-12-17T17:47:58Z")
One factor might be Shakespeare’s thoroughly unsympathetic portrait in _King John_, itself one of the dramatist’s weaker works - tedious to read and interminable to watch. The Bastard is the real hero of the play. Although it does contain some good passages in his final speech:-
_This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
Now these her princes are come home again,
Come the three corners of the world in arms,
And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true_
---
### Author:  [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/28 "2009-12-17T20:03:51Z")
> [@Ximenean](#):
>
> I must be being dense today, because that makes two jokes in this thread that I don’t get at all. This one, and **APB** ’s remarks about King John’s “much more recent and now rather famous namesake”.
\*\*BlinkingDuck \*\* was quoting a line from the Mel Brooks movie _Robin Hood: Men in Tights._ I don’t know who **APB** is talking about.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/29 "2009-12-17T20:36:34Z")
> [@mbh](#):
>
> \*\*BlinkingDuck \*\* was quoting a line from the Mel Brooks movie _Robin Hood: Men in Tights._ I don’t know who **APB** is talking about.
**APB** was, i think, making a sardonic comment about England/Britain/the U.K.'s economic/political state … “all the toilets _ **and** _ England will be called…Johns.” As in, “the country’s going down the sewer pipes.”
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [December 17, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/30 "2009-12-17T20:42:44Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#):
>
> Indeed [not](http://www.sconefest.com/john/blog/favorites/ustinov.jpg).
Well, John only sucked his thumb. Richard was into…other things.
---
### Author:  [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/31 "2009-12-18T11:37:41Z")
> [@Polycarp](#):
>
> **APB** was, i think, making a sardonic comment about England/Britain/the U.K.'s economic/political state … “all the toilets _ **and** _ England will be called…Johns.” As in, “the country’s going down the sewer pipes.”
No, I was simply making the point that, if any future prince were to be named John, most of the speculation would be that he had been named in honour of the son of George V, not King John. Thanks to Stephen Poliakoff, the ‘lost prince’ is now actually far better known in the UK than most other Royals of that period. The idea that that this was somehow righting a wrong etc. etc. would therefore be too obvious not to get lots of media coverage. Even if that was not the reason for the choice of name.
---
### Author:  [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/32 "2009-12-18T11:52:26Z")
Royal forenames that should be brought back:
Stephen (so far there’s only been ONE Stephen and that was a hell of a long time ago)
Richard (yeah, I know, Richard III…so fucking what?)
Henry (because it would be awesome to finally have a 9th king of the same name)
Kings named Edward, with a few exceptions (Edward I, III and VII) seem to have been “cursed”, from Edward II who was killed by having a hot iron rod rammed up his ass, to Edward IV who died early, obese and drunk and whose death sent the monarchy into upheaval, to Edward V who was killed in the tower as a boy, to Edward VI who died a horrifically painful death as a teenager which ended all hopes of a Tudor dynasty, to Edward VIII who tried to marry an American socialite and was exiled in disgrace. So that one should probably be retired.
---
### Author:  [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/33 "2009-12-18T12:00:03Z")
> [@Malacandra](#):
>
> Heh. The under-13 history class were watching that today. 😃
Bit racy for under-13s, no?
---
### Author:  [@Lo-Slung\_Denim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lo-Slung_Denim)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/34 "2009-12-18T12:17:00Z")
> [@dangermom](#):
>
> On another note, I find it a little frightening that my two kids, 9 and 6, know more about ol’ Richard I and John than an actual British person does.
Genuinely curious - _why_? I am British, was taught history at school, but there’s a lot of Kings and Queens and I don’t remember which one did what. Nor do I care.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/35 "2009-12-18T14:25:21Z")
From watching Disney’s _Robin Hood_?
---
### Author:  [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/36 "2009-12-18T14:29:40Z")
They’ve pretty much ceased teaching history here now. It’s not a ‘core subject’.
---
### Author:  [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/37 "2009-12-18T14:31:28Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Royal forenames that should be brought back:
**Arthur**
> **[Arthur, Prince of Wales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales)**
>
> Arthur, Prince of Wales (19/20 September 1486 – 2 April 1502) was the eldest son of King Henry VII of England and Elizabeth of York, and an older brother to the future King Henry VIII. He was Duke of Cornwall from birth, and he was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in 1489. As the heir apparent of his father, Arthur was viewed by contemporaries as the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor. His mother was the daughter of the Yorkist king, Edward IV, and his birth cemente...
You almost had another one when Henry VII named his son this, but he died at 15, so Henry VIII got to be king. It’d be an interesting Alternative History to see what would’ve happened if he’d lived. That whole “getting an annulment through the Pope” thing wouldn’t have come up.
It’s about time you had another King Arthur.
---
### Author:  [@BlinkingDuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlinkingDuck)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/38 "2009-12-18T14:39:45Z")
> [@mbh](#):
>
> \*\*BlinkingDuck \*\* was quoting a line from the Mel Brooks movie _Robin Hood: Men in Tights._ I don’t know who **APB** is talking about.
…and the only line in the whole movie I laughed at 🙂
---
### Author:  [@Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/39 "2009-12-18T14:48:24Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#):
>
> Kings named Edward, with a few exceptions (Edward I, III and VII) seem to have been “cursed”, from Edward II who was killed by having a hot iron rod rammed up his ass, to Edward IV who died early, obese and drunk and whose death sent the monarchy into upheaval, to Edward V who was killed in the tower as a boy, to Edward VI who died a horrifically painful death as a teenager which ended all hopes of a Tudor dynasty, to Edward VIII who tried to marry an American socialite and was exiled in disgrace. So that one should probably be retired.
In regards to Edward II, the hot iron up the ass seems to be a legend. Some historians think Edward actually survived for years after his supposed death. One of his (probable) lovers was killed in a really gruesome manner, though, and I think his reign still qualifies as “cursed”.
---
### Author:  [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)
#### Post date: [December 18, 2009, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487/40 "2009-12-18T14:54:56Z")
> [@Lo-Slung\_Denim](#):
>
> Genuinely curious - _why_? I am British, was taught history at school, but there’s a lot of Kings and Queens and I don’t remember which one did what. Nor do I care.
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek. 😛 However, more seriously, history is the story of how we got here, and I do think it’s important to know a good bit about it. I really am kind of taken aback by the claim made in this thread that most Britons wouldn’t know the first thing about King John or Richard I, or the difference between the legends and reality if they did. I make my kids study a lot of history and it’s one of our favorite subjects. Not to mention, it has tons of fodder for critical thinking and discussion.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/britdopers-why-is-king-john-so-reviled/521487.md?page=3)