In the prologue of this version, we are given a view of one of Eleanor's civil wars against Henry about ten years before the main action of the story. Richard and Geoffrey are clearly on Eleanor's side. And John, too young to fight, is clearly on his father's side. But what of the oldest son, young Henry, the actual heir to the throne? If he only died the summer before the main action, why isn't he involved one way or another in the prologue?
shareYoung Henry was actually the heir to the English throne and had married one of King Philip's sisters, but he died. So although we assume that the next oldest son will rule over the kingdom, Richard so totally belonged to Eleanor that Henry II was loathe to give him the kingdom.
Henry had bonded with John, who unfortunately inherited all of his impetous, reckless qualities without the genius for organization that his father had displayed. And as Eleanor pulled away from Henry after John's birth (she knew he was sleeping with Rosamond, an AFFAIR, not just one of Henry's one-night stands, which were constant), she had little love for her youngest son. He was called "John Lackland" because there wasn't enough property to go around to all the boys. Ultimately, after Richard died an ignonimous death as the result of an infection to an arrow wound, Eleanor had to scrape up her pride and get the English public to stomach John as a king. By the way, there was only one King John in all of English history - shows you the effect of his reign on the monarchy!
And it's true what was in the movie - no one thought of Geoffrey (named after Henry's gorgeous father). He was married off to an heiress in Brittany, which wasn't too shabby. He died fairly young as well.
Samantha
"Nobody's perfect."
John was indeed known as "Lackland", but he wound up Count of Mortain (prior to being king).
John was not the inept, drooling idiot both versions of the play portray him as. On the contrary, he was attractive, ambitious, cunning and intelligent -- and seemed to have few if any morals. When Richard was imprisoned on the way home from the Crusades (the backstory for most Robin Hood versions), John did his best to keep Eleanor from collecting the ransom to get Leopold (Austrian archduke) to release him.
It is true that Henry the Young King was with Eleanor and Richard and Geoffrey in their rebellion, and he is absent from the film/play. His absence is probable because it tightens the story a bit more in my opinion, as his death occured after Eleanor's imprissonment. In short, his absence in the play/movie is more artisitic then historical.
[deleted]
Henry the Young King lead the first revolt against his father, Henry II, and was joined by his brothers Richard and Geoffrey. I think it started when Henry II tried to give one of the Young King's castles to John as a wedding present.
share