Talk:John, King of England

Loss of Normandy - mistake or grammar problem?

In that section is written "Accompanied by William de Roches, his seneschal in Anjou, he swung his mercenary army rapidly south to protect her." He is John, yet William des Roches was actually Arhur of Brittany's seneschal of Anjou. Either the author misread the sources or the construction of the sentence is faulty. Beside "captured the entire rebel leadership at the battle of Mirebeau." Rebel leadership? Was not John a usurper fighting off the legitimate heir of the throne, namely his nephew Arthur?

No, just ignore this, the entire section is full of problems. I need to read that incredible unique source used here as it mostly gives an account that I never previously read (rebel forces, Eleonor captured at Mirebeau, Desroches ally of John and so on) and assess it by comparing it to other modern publications.

EDIT

Well, I checked the online version but could not access every part. The book is very interesting on a number of other aspects but I can’t make out which sources he used for Mirebeau. Still, I think Turner confused several episodes.

1. It’s been clear, so far, that the rescue party at Mirebeau was led at the very last moment by lords from Aquitaine as Aimery viscount of Thouars and the lord of Mauleon, suggesting John wasn’t able to send any support from Normandy. These details appear in the history of both families. And they are noteworthy because Aimery was Guy de Thouars’s elder brother, which means he was late Duchess Constance’s brother-in-law. His intervention at Mirebeau led to the capture of her son, young duke Arthur, which, in turn, led to Arthur’s assassination. Quite a Shakespearean tragic quirk.

2. William des Roches had been appointed seneschal of Anjou by Arthur of Brittany in 1199 who was officially acknowledged as count of Anjou in 1200. Des Roches’s biographical elements available show that he consistently served his overlord’s interests, criticizing and even chiding Philip of France after le Goulet and trying to smooth out relations between Arthur and John after that. His reaction to Arthur’s capture actually explains how Anjou (Anjou, Maine and Touraine) weighed on Philip’s side. Anjou leading figures as des Roches and Craon were very active, capturing John’s allies in Aquitaine (Thouars and Mauleon, 1207) and fighting at La Roche-aux-Moines in 1214. They never changed allegiance, unlike some Aquitaine nobles who repeatedly did. (By the way, the des Roches family is from Chateau-du-Loir in Maine, not in Anjou - describing him as an ‘Angevin’ lord can only be understood as a reference to the wider province of Anjou consisting of the counties of Anjou, of Maine and of Touraine but is quite inaccurate)

3. The history of Brittany keep no trace nor memory of any English attack during John’s reign, only his failed attempt in 1213 and his repeated blackmail over Eleonor’s sequestration during nearly 10 years. Yet, chroniclers did mention an attack led by a seneschal of Anjou in Brittany. But that was in 1197 or 1198 during Duchess Constance’s captivity after Richard the Lionheart had her treacherously abducted, not in 1202 after Eleanor’s abduction. The seneschal was Robert de Tourneham, not des Roches. But he was indeed leading an army of mercenaries --the infamous Cottereaux of Richard’s friend Marchadet/Mercadier-- to try and capture 9-year-old Arthur. A battle may have been fought near Carhaix, but Tourneham did not succeed in capturing Arthur. That was not the first (brutal) attack against Brittany during Richard’s reign but probably the last. And that’s the only episode where a seneschal of Anjou, English mercenaries, a captive Breton princess, and Brittany appear associated, and I think this is where the confusion came from. How and why would require more research yet.

Eventually, I think that labelling Bretons “rebel” is a purely subjective perspective, not a historical one as it doesn’t correspond to any factual reality: Arthur was legitimately asserting his birthrights. According to Angevin and English feudal succession standards, Arthur and Eleonor, as children of John’s elder brother, had precedence over him. A fact that was further stated when Richard declared adopting Arthur. The fact that the succession was disputed by John with his mother’s support could arguably be labelled illegitimate, all the more since Anjou, Touraine, Maine and some influential families of Aquitaine supported Arthur (Angouleme’s Taillefer). As a matter of fact, I think I remember reading that the London annals recorded, on Eleonor’s death in 1241, the fact that the legitimate heir of the English crown had died. i.e. Eleonor could have been the first queen of English history.

But stating who was right or who was wrong by using such words as ‘usurper’ or ‘rebel’ may not make sense from an analysis perspective. Mostly, Philip of France successfully exploited the disputed succession in order to conquer back Normandy and, with the addition of Anjou and the new alliance with the Duchy of Brittany, strengthened his position to the point of not only avoiding the disappearance of Capetian France but building up a real kingdom. Actually, he needed Brittany to fight John, which raises the question of his manipulative skills.

Nevertheless, in order to mention all and every perspective: after the abduction of Eleonor (who, by the way was not simply held prisoner several years, but nearly forty years until her death) and Arthur’s capture, nobles of Brittany -deprived of their princes- held a meeting of the Estates in Vannes in 1202 to discuss and vote retaliations against John. Again, it appears in historical accounts as well as family history of a large number of families in Brittany. “Retaliations” is the word consistently used in every account. Historical summaries in some peerage lists even mention this episode using this very word. From a historical perspective, this informs us on the perception people might have had of these events.

In conclusion, Arthur’s murder is actually the major reason of John’s continental failure, much more than any consideration about the merits of his military strategies.

Maeldan (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Was not John a usurper fighting off the legitimate heir of the throne, namely his nephew Arthur?

Huh? You can rebel against a usurper. 'Twas a dispute at the time.

He is John, yet William des Roches was actually Arhur of Brittany's seneschal of Anjou.

William de Roches famously switched allegiances from Arthur to John upon arriving with their meeting at Bourg-le-Roi in September 1199. Remsense诉 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, as I added above, des Roches famously criticised Philip on behalf of Arthur after le Goulet (1200) and acted in his name afterwards. "Rebel" means rising against an established government or authority and that, indeed could be a usurper, but that doesn't apply to a disputed succession since none of the pretenders could be considered an established authority over the other. Using this word clearly indicates a subjective account. Imo --Maeldan (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't seem too terribly intentional if you'd like to change it! Remsense诉 16:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Link

Within "Successor: Position abolished (Normandy and Maine are formally annexed to the crown lands of France)", the link incorrectly goes to the U.S. state of Maine instead of the French/English province of Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_(province)). Schpuz (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Corrected. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

What is it I'm not understanding? Why is the interdict not considered appropriate enough for the lead despite its profound significance? GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The interdict is a consequence of the excommunication. We don't need to detail all the results of the excommunication given the already large size of the lead... it's undue detail for the lead. And, although this is a minor point, per WP:LEAD, leads should be at most four paragraphs. This was discussed last August and no consensus for inclusion was reached. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: @Johnbod: Let's put that to the test. Which event happened first? The excommunication or the interdict? GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I confer with someone please? Ealdgyth claims that the interdict was a consequence of the excommunication. I didn't know one thing could be a consequence of something else that hadn't happened yet, as the King was excommunicated in 1209, whereas the interdict had literally already began a year earlier. Tell me again that the interdict was a consequence of the excommunication. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: @Johnbod: you available for input? GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead is very long already. Does this work for all:

• "A dispute with the pope led to a Papal interdict on the whole kingdom in 1208, and John's excommunication the next year. His dispute with the Pope was settled in 1213."

the trouble is, people know (or think they do) what excommunication means - but interdict is an unfamiliar concept to most. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

So what? Are you saying that familiarity with what the act is is given more weight than the impact the act had in a given context? My point is that the interdict WAS NOT a consequence of the excommunication, as the former happened first. Now if we are to include either one or the other in the lead, answer me which one was more consequential, the excommunication or the interdict? For me, hands down church services all over the country being banned for six years. Think about the impact that with the church at the rotational centre of society. GOLDIEM J (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

This is an article about JOHN, not the kingdom. Granted, him being king does kinda mean that a lot of it does deal with ruling and such, but the interdict does not have the same impact on John as the excommunication would. Given that the lead is already bloated, we should stick to things that impacted John directly. (And I'm sorry I got the order of interdict/excommunication reversed - it was late and this really isn't my favorite period or reign so I don't have every detail at my fingertips when I'm rushed .. mea culpa). Ealdgyth (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Thing is, though, it's not just about John, it's also about John's reign, and the interdict was a significant blow to his reign as he was responsible for England's well-being. In addition, the interdict is very much associated with him rather than just the country, so it's very much to do with him. I am starting to understand where you're coming from, though. GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The Crown Jewels

Excuse the pun but I don't want to start a gold rush here, but the Article states that the estuary which was the scene of John's baggage train disaster has never been identified. Actually the medieval account of Matthew Paris in the Historia Anglorum definitively states the Wellstream (now the river Nene) as the scene and this is not contradicted by any other ancient sources but is supported by Ralph of Coggleshall in the Chronicon Anglicanum who wrote only 4 years after the event.

The traditional image is of an incoming tide which overwhelmed the baggage train, but in 1980 British researcher Alan Marshall carried out an extensive and detailed investigation and discovered, by studying the lay of the land over which the river once flowed, that an outgoing tidal surge had actually occurred and overwhelmed the train. This outgoing tide at the time of the disaster is actually confirmed by Coggleshall, who writes,

" Moreover the greatest distress troubled him, because on that journey he lost his chapel and all his relics, and some of his packhorses with diverse household effects at the Wellstream, and many members of his household were submerged in the waters of the sea, and sucked into the quicksand there, because they had set out incautiously before the tide had receded."

And again, this was written only 4 years later, well before any of the other accounts.

Marshall's exhaustive study can be seen here: www.desiderata-curiosa.co.uk/king john.htm (note the space between "king" and "john").

This is a very major episode in British history which I feel is under-represented in the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.129.181 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Isabella, Countess of Gloucester

The article says that John's first wife, Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, was released from imprisonment in 2014, citing Vincent, p. 206 in Church ed., King John, 2007. However, ODNB on her says that her wardship ended by 2014, which sounds more likely. Does anyone have sources to say which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)