Talk:John of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents 1 Alleged Illiteracy 2 First Marriage 3 Lopsided nature of article 4 Lost crown jewels (Life, subsection Death) 5 Trivia: Bathing 6 1166 vs 1167 7 name?

[edit] Alleged Illiteracy

Just seen a documentary (12 Books that Changed the World, ITV) by the renowned clever person Melvyn Bragg who, in discussing Magna Carta quite plainly stated "there is no evidence that King John could write". This contradicts the section on alleged illiteracy in this article (which in itself reads a bit like a polemic lifted from an earlier encyclopaedia). 84.68.139.205 23:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

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:

1. Richard ("Ricardus de Warenn' filius regis Johannis"), Curia Rolls
2. Joan ("Johannes Rex anglie solutus te genuerit de soluta"), Register of Honorius III
3. Oliver. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
4. Osbert. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
5. John. Painter, S. Reign of King John, 1904
6. Henry ("Henricum filium le Rey"). Curia Rolls, Memoranda Roll, Pipe Rolls
7. Eudes ("Eudoni filio regis"). Calendar Liberate Rolls, Cartulary of Launceston Priory
8. Bartholomew. Calendar of Papal Registers
9. Geoffrey ("Gaufrido filio nostro"). Curia Rolls
10. Maud ("Dame Maud la file le Roy Jon"). Monasticon Anglicanum
11. Isabel ("filie Regis Joh'is"). Herald and Genealogist 7, 1873
12. 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

[edit] First Marriage

The article says King John first married Avisa or Isabella, these being alternate names of a daughter of William Fitz Robert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester. However, that page suggests that Isabella and Avisa were different daughters, and that it was Isabella who married the youg John. It also says that later, Isabella married Hubert de Burgh, 1st Earl of Kent. But that page says Hubert married "Avisa... ex-wife of King John of England"!! I'm confused! ::Supergolden:: 10:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lopsided nature of article

Given the immense body of scholarly work on John's reign, and the importance of the loss of Normandy and Magna Carta to English history, how come so much of the article is about literacy?

[edit] Lost crown jewels (Life, subsection Death)

From http://britannia.com/history/narmedhist3.html: "One persistent legend is that he lost all his baggage train, including the Crown jewels in the marshy area known as the Wash in the county of Norfolk." The article treats this well-known story as fact. Is it? David Watson 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the loss of some of John's treasures (but not necessarily the Crown jewels) is supposedly attested in Roger of Wendover's Flores Historiarum; that would probably be a good place to start checking. Choess 20:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: Bathing

I am bothered by the entry on John's baths in the trivia section. First, if those payments for baths every three weeks indicate "an elaborate and ceremonial affair," this implies (to me, at least) that these were not his basic baths, but rather something extra-ordinary. Logically, the statement as it stands does not hold. Second (and this is one of my pet peeves), bathing in the middle ages is not the same as it is today (and anyhow, how many people take a bath, in a tub, every day anymore?) - it meant going to a public bathhouse (often the equivalent of a modern "massage parlor"). It was more of a social event than just washing, and may have been like today's swimming pools (or swimming baths, as I have seen them called in England). As for the monks, of course they're not going to bathe frequently - in part because of the association of "bathing" with vice, and second, foregoing regular cleaning (at the baths or no) was part of their ascetic regime.

I suggest amending the entry to "According to records of payment made to King John's bath attendant, William Aquarius, the king bathed on average about once every three weeks, which cost a considerable sum of 5d to 6d each, suggesting an elaborate and ceremonial affair." It shortens the passage, eliminates problematic modern views, and emphasizes the special nature of the occassion. If anyone objects to the edit, please state why. Otherwise, if there is no further comment, I will make my suggested edit.

Ibnsanjil 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)ibnsanjil

[edit] 1166 vs 1167

I agree that 1166 is probably the year of John's birth, especially if it was immediately before Christmas. Apparently, until the 14th century (1301-1400), the new year began on December 25 (the calendar was, from 1100 to 1299, seven days slow compared to the Gregorian calendar yet to be enacted, so if Gregorian had been in effect, December 24, 1166 Julian would have been December 31, 1167 Gregorian, with the new year starting on December 25). As of sometime in the 14th century, New Year moved to March 25, before changing to January 1 starting in 1753.

Thus, if John was born on December 24, he was born the day before 1166 ended, and if he was born after 6 p.m., it would have been December 25, 1167. GBC 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name?

King John spoke French, born to parents born in France, and raised in French culture. Then wouldn't he have himself spelled his name Jean supposing he was literate? (I'm not asking for an argument I'd just like a simple answer with a reason why) -Working for Him 02:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The usual spelling in French/Anglo-Norman was Iehan or Jehan. In Latin it was Iohannes or Johannes. He himself would have used forms like these in writing (others will know whether he actually did or not). As regards the article title, the English Wikipedia adopts the form currently (nowadays) used in English, so we have no problem. It would, no doubt, be appropriate to mention these medieval forms of the name somewhere in the article. Andrew Dalby 10:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)