Best Robin Hood film?

Aug 2014
4,343
Australia
#61
Richard was at the time considered to the very model of what a King should be, even today many historians have a very high opinion of him.

John on the other hand is generally considered a bloody awful King.
Richard was king for ten years and spent less than six months in England, and most of that was for his coronation. To him, England was nothing but a piggy bank to fund his campaigns on the continent. He ended up bankrupting the country.
John was left to try and clean up the mess that his brother left. He was the first king to put the interests of England ahead of his continental interests.
 
Likes: Davidius
May 2011
13,846
Navan, Ireland
#62
Richard was king for ten years and spent less than six months in England, and most of that was for his coronation. To him, England was nothing but a piggy bank to fund his campaigns on the continent. He ended up bankrupting the country.
John was left to try and clean up the mess that his brother left. He was the first king to put the interests of England ahead of his continental interests.
John put the interests of England first because he had lost so much of the crowns land on France.

Why would Richard have stayed in England? That part of his realm was generally at peace it was his lands in France that were the problem.
 
May 2011
13,846
Navan, Ireland
#64
How was he supposed to keep them? Wars cost money and Richard squandered it faster than Imelda Marcos in a shoe store.
Actually John lost much of them because he gave up strategic land to the King of France in order to secure the crown for himself he then managed to face rebellion and invasion when he did become King.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#65
Does Richard deserve his reputation as a great English king? Definitely not. Does John deserve his reputation as one of the worst? Again no. Richard's achievements were more significant on a global scale, John's on a more local level. You don't acquire the nickname 'Lackland' without reason, and this was either through incompetence , dislike or because others are trying to take your power; in John's case it was all three. At least John tried to rule England, Richard (if he had continued to live) would have drained England in order to fund his exploits. Which was better? Probably John, but neither left England poorer for their passing.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#67
What with being king and all, an ordinary person might be forgiven for wanting Richard to rule England.

Richard comes across a bit like a nasty, spoiled child. He liked war. Didn't John have to ransom Richard once, at great cost?.

I wonder How Richard would have responded to Magna Carta?
 
Sep 2014
869
Texas
#68
Prince of Theives,

Alan Rickman at his very best, quite simpley the best villian ever. Well maybe Darth
I'm going to cut his heart out with a spoon.......because it will hurt more. 1547560796352.png

I've never loved a villain more.
However...I fell in love with Robin Hood because of this guy..... 1547560880428.png He even had a catchy theme song....
 
Likes: bboomer
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#69
What with being king and all, an ordinary person might be forgiven for wanting Richard to rule England.

Richard comes across a bit like a nasty, spoiled child. He liked war. Didn't John have to ransom Richard once, at great cost?.

I wonder How Richard would have responded to Magna Carta?

Richard was liked and feared too much to have had such a thing thrust upon him. I wonder how the barons would have reacted to John being ransomed? Probably they'd have paid his captors NOT to release him!
 
Likes: bboomer

Similar History Discussions