Richard ‘the Lionheart’ and ‘bad Prince 李察“狮心王”和“坏王子.pptVIP

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: 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 Government: How true is the traditional view of Kings Richard I and John? IS THE ROBIN HOOD LEGEND TO BLAME?King John is the cruel King opposing Robin HoodKing 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: * * Henry II m. Eleanor of Aquitaine # Henry Richard I Geoffrey John King Richard I King John 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. 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. *