King John: the most evil monarch in Britain's history

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/11671441/King-John-the-most-evil-monarch-in-Britains-history.html ^

[Perdogg]

Tomorrow, you can hardly have failed to notice, marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the document famously issued by King John at Runnymede on June 15, 1215. Most people are understandably a little hazy about the charter’s contents (it runs to 63 clauses and over 4,000 words). But they are aware that it was a “good thing” – a significant step in the direction of the liberties we enjoy today.

[matginzac]

Not enough time to challenge ALL your observations...
But first, Richard had no legitimate sons....hence the crown went to John...

[matginzac]

Good movie...and they tried to stick to true history....the pigs did happen!

[matginzac]

And we might throw in Edward II, Henry IV and a few others...
At the risk of sounding Clintonian, could someone define “worst”.....?

[matginzac]

And I think that was Richard III who is accused of killing the two princes...
But it was never proved....

[matginzac]

Henry II called to two of his men to “rid him of this pain”, Thomas a Becket.
Any if it helps, Henry II was born and raised on the European continent, in was is now Northern France...more Gaul than Anglo-Saxon...

[Oztrich Boy]

But first, Richard had no legitimate sons....hence the crown went to John...

But he did have illegitimate ones. Which suggests he wasn't just having woman sex out of duty to perpetuate the monarchy, like Eddie 2 did

[matginzac]

Well, it behooves us to leave out the bastards because almost all the monarchs had them...
I have no opinion on Richard’s sexuality in that there was no definitive proof as there was in Edward II’s case. People in those days were pretty quick to mete out justice for known buggery.

[matginzac]

And also just because you fathered a bastard and/or a legitimate child doesn’t mean you prefer women...
Case in point: James I and more recently, ex-NJ governor, Jim McGreevy, to name a few.

[CARDINALRULES]

The bad thing about finding the family blood lines is finding the ones you don’t want to claim. Even the ones not in the direct line. I have direct and indirect connections to at least one in that list.

---

I have royal and titled bloodline connections all over Europe. Some are direct and others are indirect. Some like my connection to Charles Martel are both.

[Clemenza]

“From this day forth, all the toilets in the kingdom shall be known as...Johns!

[tumblindice]

‘Kings And Queens of England’ writes that, like Richard III John got a bad rap.

[Texas Fossil]

From your own search>

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2014/04/was-richard-lionheart-homosexual.html

Does not sound very convincing to me.

[Texas Fossil]

Thank you for the link.

[matt1234]

In the movie “Lion in Winter” John is portrayed as slow-witted. But that, of course, is just a movie.

[Gen.Blather]

“Does not sound very convincing to me.”

I read it. I am convinced that, as one of the poster’s said, it was an invention of the twentieth century. Probably liberal reconstructionism. I’m disappointed that the British museum docent so fully illuminated this apparent falsity for a busload of tourists.

[crz]

They were from Anjou originally.

[Vigilanteman]

It is part of the genealogy game. A substantial portion of people claiming European ancestry will have royalty pop-up somewhere for the following reasons:

1. Sheer math: Get back to about 1400 or so and you have more potential ancestors than the entire population of 2-3 mid-sized European countries.
   
2. Royalty was infamous about spreading their "seed" around. William the Conqueror has at least 18 known bastard children, and an even greater number of rumored. The numbers may be staggering, but his situation (albeit not his quantities) is the rule, rather than the exception.
   
3. The upper classes often hired wet nurses rather than breast feed their own children. They weren't hard to find since infant mortality was endemic. The purposes of the wet nurses wasn't because they were too lazy to nurse their own, but because they wanted the opportunity to produce as many children as possible. This was seen as a necessity to ensure survival of their lineage even though it often meant that wealth often diminished from generation to generation.
   
4. Process of elimination: The more commonplace your ancestry, the higher the likelihood that your ancestral records will go totally blank by 1500, 1600 or even 1700 or later. Those which survive are likely due to intermarriage or close association with a line produced in #2 or #3.

[Texas Fossil]

History of the Leftist? LIES, ALL LIES.

The call Obama “Zero” for a reason. No history, totally conjured past. They must lie, because no one would vote or support them if they told the truth.

[SunkenCiv]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree.

The worst of the British monarchs was probably Stephen, last ruler of the House of Normandy.

Regardless, on the last of the worst were any of the German-speaking Hanoverian kings (which list includes George III, whom we overthrew; Henry VI (weak is the most flattering of his adjectives), Mary I, James II.

For that matter, Richard I “the Lionheart” spent a mere six months of his reign in England, spending the rest of it in the Crusades (two years at the siege of Acre alone), and in the hoosegow of some European king. About 30 years ago there was a bio of Richard I that argued he was one of the ablest British monarchs, but that’s difficult to argue, IMHO. :’)