Perhaps, it was reading stories about Robin Hood as a boy that I first came to admire Richard the Lionheart, King of England from 1189 until his death ten years later. He was the noble ruler who, when returning from the Crusades, removed his usurping brother John from the throne and undid that pretender’s repressive measures, restoring law and order, furthering freedom and ushering in a Golden Age for England.
Only later, would I learn that that usurper would succeed Lionheart as King. Of his decade on the throne, Richard was only in England a few months, perhaps spending the lowest percentage of his reign in Great Britain of any English monarch. He may not even have spoken English. (Wikipedia says he “spoke very little English“.)
Maybe had he spent more time in England, he could have made sure his edicts were enforced. He had issued a writ allowing Jews to live free from state (and church) interference and even ordered the execution of Christians who persecuted and murdered Jews–quite an enlightened act for the Middle Ages. He could not prevent the massacre at York in 1190, indeed many historians believe that his crusading zeal generated the religious fervor of those who perpetrated the crime.
All that said, sometimes, I wish I didn’t so love history so much; my knowledge sometimes detracts from my enjoyment of movies. Whenever I watch the wonderful 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood, I want the wicked Prince John (another masterful Claude Rains performance) to get his just desserts, but I know that, in real life, John would succeed Richard, reigning for seventeen years. Instead of remaining in England to preside over a new Golden Age after he ended John’s tyrannical rule, Richard was off to France to fight for his lands there.
And the irony of all this: in many cases, it’s the historically inaccurate movies which sparked my interest in the history behind the legends.
Then in The Lion in Winter (one of my favs), we learn that he had a love for King Philip II.
You know then, that there’s a new “revisionist” version of the legend of Robin Hood coming out next year, starring Russell Crowe (mmmmm) and Cate Blanchett? (How it is revisionist I don’ know — that was the columnists word not mine)
I think Richard I is a better example of what it means to be homosexual than, say, Mika.
Robin Hood’s the one who shouldn’t be lionized. He’s the template for all the wealth redistribution schemes. We ought to teach children why what he did (in legend) is wrong.
Somewhere I learned that a legend doesn’t have to be factual, just true. I’ve pondered the meaning of that for years and still don’t have an answer.
Yeah but Dan, people are punished by their sins even when they appear to get away from them. I’ll bet John lived his life knowing he was a scuzball – not an easy thing.
Heck, I’ll bet John even lived his life in a state of defensive obsession about Richard, attaching defensive slogans to his (John’s) insignia that would proclaim John’s alleged ability to “provide” things that Richard couldn’t 😉
Sorry, typo, “…even when they appear to get away -with- them”.
Richard Lionheart also died when a teenage French peasant hit him in the shoulder with an arrow. RL pardoned his assassin and ordered him to be set free, but after he died, one of his mercenaries had the boy skinned alive in order to gain the favor of King John.
Look at it this way, Dan: yes, John was a petty and reprehensible creature (his contemporaries sneeringly referred to him as John “Softsword” in reference to his cowardice,) but he was so universally despised that he managed to unite his nobles against him in threatened insurrection. The crisis was averted when, in 1215, John was forced to sign the Magna Carta setting out and guaranteeing the rights of his subjects and affirming that all men – even kings – were bound by the law. And of course, the Magna Carta is the rock on which constitutional government is built. So, if you think about it, we are a nation of laws in part because, once upon a time England had a very nasty and unloved King …
Great point, JennyR. Even if a figure is hateful and dishonest, some good can arise from it for the rest of us. (Actually that is a big theme of J.R.R. Tolkien’s fiction. In _The Silmarillion_ even more than the LOTR.)
My understanding of Robin Hood was that during the time, Richard was king, but while he was crusading, his brother Prince John, at the time, was running the show. He did succeed his brother at his death, as I don’t think Richard had any children.
I don’t know how despotic John was, but, as Jenny said, about a year before he died, he signed the Magna Carta. I’m guessing he didn’t want to, but was forced to by other nobles who were able to gain power, and have influence on his rule.
Richard’s mother was born in France, and through his father’s marriage, and other alliances, England had control of many of the French regions. Actually, I think they were dukes of these regions who had to bow allegiance to the French king, although they probably felt it should have been the other way around. So Richard probably spoke mostly French. English was still trying to find its way around England, especially among the rich and educated.
Louise, this student of mythology delights in your comment as it gets at the heart of the meaning of myth and legend. The stories may not be literally true, but reveal truths about the human condition.
Just look at the beginning of the Iliad, a book I have been studying intensely of late. In the real world, no goddess could have intervened to prevent Achilles from killing Agamemnon, but surely what that goddess represents in his psyche help him back.
And Pat, as to the history, when Richard was out crusading, he left either his mother (the great Katharine Hepburn, er, Eleanor of Aquitane) or William Longchamp as regent. John tried to usurp the authority of the latter. Later tellers of the Robin Hood tales used that piece of history in their retellings of the story whose literary origins go back to Piers Plowman in the 14th century, but likely has antecedents in English folklore going back to the years immediately following the Norman conquest.
John has the reputation of being one of the worst English kings–and he did not willingly sign the Magna Carta. And yes, the rich and educated tended not to speak English, a language very much in flux since the tragic events of 1066. Nobles mostly spoke bad French (as their Norman ancestors had Scandinavian ancestors and did not learn the language well) while the people still spoke the language of Beowulf, though, by then, much influenced by Norman French.
It wasn’t until more than a century after Richard than the English would become the language of the English court. It’s actually fascinating to realize that perhaps as many as half of the English monarchs did not speak English as a first language.
The fractured origin of the English language is, some say, a key to its adaptibility and being adopted by the world. It is supposed to be one of the tougher languages if you want to speak it very well, but one of the easier ones if you just want to be understood or “get started”.
Dan, thanks for the info regarding the regents during Richard I’s reign. And even as recent as 1714 did a king of England not speak English. George I, while a great-grandson of James I, was born and raised in Germany, probably only expecting ever to be Elector of Hanover, got the job.
Ha! Am reading Ivanhoe.