Talk:John of England
|
|
Since there's only going to be one... ;-) JHK
I have heard that John's reputation was so bad that the name "John" was retired. English law decrees there shall never be another king named "John".
- Sounds believable. For sure there's never been anyone in line to the throne called John. I just thought the rule was informal, like the rest of the Constitution. Saves having a rather odd "Article IX: No monarch of the realm shall be named John" stuck in there : ) Wooster 13:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Not so. John's grandson, Edward I, named his second son John (the boy died young). Edward III also had a son named John of Gaunt, who was a very powerful nobleman and the de facto ruler of England for several years. A still later king (Edward VII I believe?) also had a son named John who also died young. The name John has an unfortunate history, that's all. Missi
- Much like the name 'Arthur', which after John killed Arthur of Brittany just had bad luck attached to it - other 'Arthur's (Edward I's son, of Henry VII's son, for example) tended to die young. Not formally legislated against, merely, umm, unwise...Lutefish
The truth, however, is that he was no better or worse a king than his immediate predecessor or his successor (which is still not much of a compliment).
This is very POV. How can we reword this? -Kwertii
Quality of English kingship could be judged by contemporary popularity (which has to be carefully separated from posthumous popularity of course - making the previous incumbent look like a nasty incompetent piece of work so that you look good wasn't invented by politicians), the financial state of the country and level of civil strife (often effectively popularity among the barons, although they were often nasty pieces of work, so having them hate you might well indicate you were a more reasonable person). If you wanted to be terribly old-fashioned, politically incorrect and imperialistic you could include ability to kick the crap out of the Welsh/Scots/French/anyone the pope has said is fair game...Average Earthman 10:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I've changed the bit about 'threatened French invasion'. It wasn't just threatened, Louis (and his baronial supporters) had control of London at the time. It was when John died that the barons decided they'd rather have the infant Henry on the throne than Louis, and switched sides. Average Earthman 11:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I think more needs to be written about this. Not necessarily in this article. I think few people, even people with a reasonable knowledge of history, are aware of this succesful invasion by the French. Mintguy (T) 12:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Because it doesn't count :-) He only came because of the backing of the barons (without whom you don't have an army), and he got kicked out pretty sharpish when he lost it. And he never got much of the country (including Dover IIRC) The Dutch don't claim to have successfully invaded the British Isles because William of Orange got the throne... Average Earthman 12:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Well it's a moot point. The English army deserted to Wiliam's side. How much fighting occured after Louis landed? Louis harldy ever gets a mention. He's a missing pretender. Mintguy (T)
The DOB has been changed to 1166 by 63.228.161.51 - however, although both 1166 and 1167 are reported by Google, 1167 is the date used on the official British royal family webpage. Is there an original 12th century cite out there to determine which date is correct?Average Earthman 09:47, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- 1167 is impossible for one good reason -- King Henry and Queen Eleanor weren't together in March 1167, when John would have to have been conceived! They were, however, together in March 1166. Also, John was born in England on or around Christmas, and Henry and Eleanor spent Christmas 1167 together at Argentan in Normandy. Missi
The only way the 1167 birth date is possible is if Henry II wasn't Johns father. But it seems unlikely because Eleanor was a very honest woman and no affairs are ever recorded.
I removed one the images, a portrait from 1902, because A) it's probably not a very accurate depiction of the man, and B) the article is already rather picture-heavy. If the article grows some more, I'd support it being added back just to demonstrate historical depictions of him outside of his own time, as a minor point of interest, but I definitely don't think it needs to go at the top by the intro. Everyking 17:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Well, it's been replaced now. I think we should give precedence to images of a person from his or her own time to portraits done 700 years later, but I suppose that isn't how it shall be. Everyking 19:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
hey dude...this page is sweet!!
I'm a bit confused as to why the page is title John of England - I've never heard of King John referred to in this way.
- It's the standard way in which we name articles on monarchs. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical_titles.
- James F. (talk) 06:14, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Heh, could King John have been the inspiration for the Burger King of the Burger King Kingdom? He did kinda look like him, at least according to that illustration.
I've found documentation for two more illegitimate children! John was certainly a busy fellow. Besides his five legitimate offspring, he had at least twelve bastards by various and sundry women. At this rate, he's going to catch up with his notoriously fertile great-grandfather, Henry I of England, soon. John's illegitimate children I have found documentation for are:
- Richard ("Ricardus de Warenn' filius regis Johannis"), Curia Rolls
- Joan ("Johannes Rex anglie solutus te genuerit de soluta"), Register of Honorius III
- Oliver. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
- Osbert. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
- John. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
- Henry ("Henricum filium le Rey"). Curia Rolls, Memoranda Roll, Pipe Rolls
- Eudes ("Eudoni filio regis"). Calendar Liberate Rolls, Cartulary of Launceston Priory
- Bartholomew. Calendar of Papal Registers
- Geoffrey ("Gaufrido filio nostro"). Curia Rolls
- Maud ("Dame Maud la file le Roy Jon"). Monasticon Anglicanum
- Isabel ("filie Regis Joh'is"). Herald and Genealogist 7, 1873
- Philip ("Philippum Fitz Le Rey"). Saltzman, L.F. Abstract of Feet of Fines Relating to the County of Sussex, 1908.
Missi 10:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything editing, so I don't think I should attempt to fix this myself, especially since the portion in question is hyperlinked. But I did notice an error in this article:
The canon of Laon, writing a century later, states John was named after Saint John the Baptist, on whose feast day (December 27) he was born.
December 27 is the feast day of Saint John the Evangelist, not St. John the Baptist. That would be June 24. Perhaps the error lies with the original source (the canon of Laon), but it's an error nonetheless.
- The quote from the chronicle in question, Chronicon universale anonymi Laudunensis, is: "quia circa festum beati Johannis natus fuit, Johannem eum appellaverunt" (John was named after the sainted John, because he had been born on the saint's feast day). St. John the Baptist's feast day was June 24, called "summer St. John's day", while St. John the Evangelist's feast day was December 27 called "winter St. John's day". We know John was born late in 1166, probably around Christmastime -- Queen Eleanor did not attend the Christmas court at Poitou that year, and instead stayed in England. This is understandable if she was heavily pregnant and had no wish to risk a winter crossing of the Channel. I must have confused the two saints John, and will correct in the article. Missi