What made William the
Conqueror an effective king?





Kept law and order
Built castles to help control rebels etc.
Collected tax effectively and fairly
Good at fighting battles
Religious / had good relations with the
Church
WHO WAS THE BETTER KING
– RICHARD I (1189-99) OR
JOHN (1199-1216)?
 The Family Tree:
Henry II m. Eleanor of Aquitaine
#
Henry
Richard I Geoffrey
John
The Traditional View:
Nicknames:
Richard ‘the Lionheart’
and
‘bad Prince John’ /
‘lackland’ /
‘soft-sword’
Richard, the Crusader king
Bad Prince John and
Robin Hood
The pictures of the brothers
King Richard I
King John
Government:
King Richard outside the
Houses of Parliament
Today. Doesn’t he look
powerful?
King John forced to sign
The Magna Carta, 1215
by his Barons. This makes
Him look weak!
-Magna Carta = a list of
things the king was NOT
allowed to do.
How true is the traditional
view of Kings Richard I and
John?
Caption:
‘Was I REALLY a
bad king?’
Supporting the traditional view
– John was NOT seen as a holy king
because he fell out with the Pope and
punished many of the monks.
- He was seen as weak because the
Barons made him sign the Magna
Carter.
- He lost a lot of land during Wars
which made him seem a weak fighter.
IS THE ROBIN HOOD LEGEND
TO BLAME?
King John is the cruel King
opposing Robin Hood
King Richard is the brave King
away fighting in the crusades
King Richard: The Traditional
View:
 – Richard won lots of battles and
conquered lots of land in the Holy
Land (Cyprus, Acre and NEARLY
Jerusalem).
 He was a superb fighter
 He was seen to defend the Church
against the Saracens in the Crusades
 He never had to give in to his Barons
Which view is closest to the
truth?:
Was Richard that good a King?
Was John as greedy and cruel
and so weak at fighting in
reality?
Let’s Look at the opposing
points of view: