King John

854 Words4 Pages
WAS KING JOHN REALLY A BAD KING? King John is one of the most well-known figures in history because he has forever been portrayed as a wicked, vile ruler of England, who taxed the country out of everything they had and despised his own people. In this essay, I aim to prove that King John wasn’t really a bad king because although he did have a bad personality, all the problems he faced were mostly caused by his father and brother also he also did some good deeds therefore he was actually a good, bad and unlucky king. John inherited many problems from his father King Henry II and brother King Richard I when he became king. The main problem was Philip II, King of France, this was caused because Richard I refused to marry Philip’s sister.…show more content…
In contrast, the Victorians thought that John was a Devil and a Villain because he divorced his wife, took land from the church which was a holy place and treated priests badly. They believed the Magna Carta is very important because it means that no king could do what they liked. They thought this because they read the books written by monks; which very biased because they only stated the bad things that John did because they were on the pope’s side. Modern Historians don’t agree about John because they thought he was unlucky but a good king because they thought he was organised and ran the government well, but he was unlucky and inherited many of his problems. Having examined all the evidence, I have concluded that John was not a bad king. This is because in most circumstances he was just very unlucky otherwise he could have easily overcome his problems. Finally, he did have some good qualities were enough to run a country peacefully. Therefore my final conclusion is that King John was not a bad
Get Access