I so enjoyed last week's discussion of the princes in the tower, I decided to initiate more medieval chatter.
So here's the question: Who was a worse king - Richard or John?
John I gets the worst rap in history, and there's no disputing he was a disaster. He lost the French provinces, bankrupted the treasury, and let the efficient government structure created by his father go to hell in a hand basket.
But Richard I, a.k.a. Lionheart, had a much better historical press agent. He's seen as a hero crusader, idolized in folklore. But on closer inspection, his reign was also a disaster, and it actually set the stage for his wretched little brother John.
Richard was a war-monger who also bled the country dry with taxes to pay for the crusade. The Jewish population of England was massacred on his watch, and his absense from England, leaving the likes of the brutal William Longchamp in charge, really makes him one of the worst kings in English history.
At least with John, we can look to the Magna Carta as the most significant thing to come out of his rule (thanks to his poor performance as a king). But with Richard, there's almost nothing positive to say. Plus, if he'd taken the time to sleep with his wife occasionally, he might have left an heir and saved the empire from the incompetent John.
So, ladies and gentlemen, history lets Richard skate, and John takes all the blame for ruining their father's legacy.