Section 1 – How were they perceived (contemporary)
John was regularly documented to favour the interests of foreigners over those of his people, as written by the Barnwell Chronicler who suggests John was liberal to outsiders, but “a despoiler of the inhabitants”.
This lack of loyalty to his country surely played a role in the poor success of John’s reign, and when compared with the likes of Richard I who was able to maintain both his foreign alliances as well as a strong public image whilst only visiting England for 6 months, John’s failure in winning the respect of his people is shown with stark clarity.
Richard was seen by almost all of his subjects as the ideal king, proficient in the arts of hunting and swordsmanship whilst still maintaining his interest in literature and politics.
The account by Ralph of Coggeshall writing about his visit to Richard while he was in captivity describes Richard as “a man who’s ability to rise above the vicissitudes of fortune won the admiration of all”.
The account also described Richard as cheerful and jocund despite being imprisoned, which contributed to his image as a valiant king.
Peter of Blois’ description of Henry II to Walter, Archbishop of Palemero, also presents Henry II as a strong king, his words epitomising the characteristics of an ideal ruler of England. Peter of Blois writes: “No one is more cunning in council, more fiery in speech, more secure in the midst of danger, more cautious in fortune, more constant in adversity.
”
This account suggests Henry II was a successful king as even a Frenchman such as Peter of Blois was willing to compliment him in such a way, despite the rivalry between France and England at the time. The account concludes with the words: “There is no one more subtle, and no one more magnificent to be found”.
This suggests from a contemporary viewpoint that Henry II was one of, if not the most successful monarch of the period, whereas King John was widely considered much less successful in both his foreign and internal affairs.
However many contemporaries saw King Stephen’s reign as ‘anarchy’, which refers both specifically to the civil war in England and Normandy during his reign, but also commonly refers to the reign as a whole.
The origins of this ‘anarchy’ come from the ‘White Ship Disaster’ of 1120 which created uncertainty regarding the rightful succession of the throne, eventually to be inherited by Stephen of Blois through force and the help of his brother Henry despite Matilda holding arguably the stronger claim, being the daughter of Henry I. The resulting discord laid the foundations for Stephen’s tainted legacy
Section 2: Relationship with the Church and barons
The paintings by Matthew Paris offer a unique insight into the reigns of different monarchs including those of John, Richard I and Stephen, presenting Richard I as a strong and brave king, however showing John to be much less valiant, adorned with a lopsided crown, and his back turned to the church.
This suggests from a contemporary viewpoint that John was the weaker of the two, and was seen as more cowardly in the eyes of his subjects.
The portrait of John presents him as both dishevelled in appearance, suggesting he was seen as unprepared as a king, but also shows a poor relationship with the church which at the time was the most important institution in England, and if mistreated would have undoubtedly created discord with the reigning monarch and therefore had an impact on the success of their reign.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
