why did they hate each other so much?
Was the household of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine really as stormy as it is depicted in THE LION IN WINTER?
God is subtle, but He is not malicious. (Albert Einstein)
According to my (extremely) limited research, John did at one time try to take Richard's throne while Richard was on his crusade and imprisoned in Austria, but Richard forgave John and John eventually took the throne as king after Richard's death.
Based on the interpretation of the Robin Hood legend in 'The Adventures of Robin Hood', John was jealous of his brother's position as king and used Richard's imprisonment as means to rob the people by hoarding Richard's ransom money and to take over the throne.
I haven't seen 'The Lion in Winter', but from what I have read about it, it is based on historical events, but there is no factual support for the dialogue and actions of the characters within the play itself.
Well, Richard probably murdered his father and Eleanor was the true power to the throne. Of the two, John was the better king; Richard just got all of the romantic notions, thanks to people like Sir Walter Scott.
Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!
True.
And under John the Magna Carta was signed. The foundation upon Western Democracy is built.
At least John stayed in England and cared enough to govern. Richard spent most of his reign fighting the holy wars in the middle east.
John got his legacy besmirched just like Richard III did.
I don't know how they did it, but the English barons FORCED King John to sign the Magna Carta.
You can be sure, he didn't do it willingly.
BTW, according to Wiki, it was never really enforced.
From what I understand, it was the custom time for parents to leave everything they had to their first born son, nobody else. Brothers and sisters often became mortal enemies, attacking each other just to survive.
shareThat is a very sketchy way of summing things up. All children were to be provided for, but in a hierarchical way; the firstborn had the lion's share, true, but his younger siblings weren't left with nothing. John "Lackland" was actually well provided with lands by his parents, just not with his father's whole kingdom, so long as his older brother was alive. The right of primogeniture actually arose precisely in an attempt to curb war between siblings: the older custom was to divide the inheritance in equal shares among all the sons; as a direct consequence, brothers often waged war on each other, sometimes even assassinating family members, trying to recapture the whole of their late father's power. Primogeniture did not invent sibling rivalry, in fact it was pretty successful in making things more peaceful. One of the reasons the rivalry between Richard and John has remained famous (and has been much, much fantasized upon) was that it was not a common occurrence in the context of those times.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
brunhilda2013 says > From what I understand, it was the custom time for parents to leave everything they had to their first born son, nobody else.That's been my understanding too except it wasn't the 'parents' but the father who left what he had to his first born son. Usually all they had that was worth anything was property and title. According to the literature of the time and the movies based on that literature and other historical events, it wasn't just the custom but the law. I don't know when those laws went into effect but I believe they are still in existence to this day. It's one of many things that differentiate the US and England (I'm not sure if it's the same way throughout the United Kingdom).
Brothers and sisters often became mortal enemies, attacking each other just to survive.It's unclear under what circumstances women could be named in their father's will. I know they could not inherit property or titles but I've heard on rare occasions they could be left a small stipend for their care; assuming their father had money. Anything tied to or generated by property would, of course, belong to her eldest brother. The widow often got nothing but was allowed to stay on the estate along with any unmarried daughters if her son inherited it. If she had no sons, she'd have to vacate the property as it would be inherited by the husband's next eldest male relative.
In the case of Eleanor of Aquitaine though (Richard and John's mother), she was Duchess of Aquitaine, and it was through her that Richard became Count of Poitiers and Duke of Aquitaine; even when she married - first to the king of France, then to Henry, she was still the Duchess; her husbands weren't dukes, only her sons could inherit. Her dowery was hers and hers alone.
Eldest sons got the lion's share, but younger sons weren't left with nothing. Even John "Lackland" wasn't all that Lackland at all, his father Henry made sure he would have the rule of diverse territories, especially after his eldest son betrayed him.
"Occasionally I'm callous and strange."
Richard only spent five months of his reign in England. To him, the people were there to finance and fight his wars . Just enjoy the film.and forget the truth!
share