John was a good king?

Most contemporary sources are written by monks who were critical of John as he defied the Pope and plundered the church during interdict
It was because John was so actively involved in government that he annoyed his nobels
1. The developments in the Exchequer and the Chancery are worthy enough to be compared to Henry II's judicial reforms
Early writings, such as royal records showed John was interested in the machinery of royal government
Arguably, John was a diligent and able king
The barons had narrow and selfish grounds for their resistance to John
1. Baronial rebellion = a rebellion die to the resentment of the efficacy of John's rule
Face appalling difficult circumstances and bad luck
Loss of Normandy perhaps due to finance? Difficult for him to find money and Philip's booming revenues enabled him to raise strong armies
Magna Carta was not due solely to John's actions
Records show John managed to increase the revenue of his Kingdom higher than that of Henry or Richard
Many perceive the submission to Rome humiliating, but instead shows his political astuteness as to how best to please the Pope
1. Sacrificed his own position in the feudal hierarchy to appease such a figure
Chroniclers, such as Roger Wendover, are unreliably and exaggerated, sometimes not even written at the time of John's reign. This stories portraying John as a ruthless, violent king should be treated with caution
1. However, how did such rumours arise and why could they stand without contradiction?

Resource summary

	Created by Charlotte Peacock almost 11 years ago