1. SOW: What can Disney’s ‘Robin Hood’ tell us about King John?
Year 7
Concept - interpretations
Please look through slideshow to see all animations and transitions. All resources are at the end of the PowerPoint.
Lesson 3:
Starter:
Q: Based on the information from last lesson, was John a success or failure?
… If John was a failure, why does J. Holt says that his success was unequalled by any other medieval king?
Q. Why might Holt have interpreted King John differently to other historians before him? (1960s / revisionist historian).
Holt questioned how reliable the chroniclers (whose writings form the main body of evidence for histories on King John) were when they described King John.
Chronic damage: How far can we trust the Chroniclers of King John?
Task:
Fill in the evidence table.
Write at least one sentence explaining how each of the chroniclers describes King John (add quotes if you can – historians do this all the time!).
Now that you know what the chroniclers actually wrote, how reliable do you think it might be, based on their backgrounds?
Fill in the reliability table.*
*make sure you read each background carefully, and that you give good justifiable reasons for your ratings
So, how reliable were the chroniclers of King John?

2. EQ: What can Disney’s ‘Robin Hood’ tell us about King John?
How fair is this interpretation?

3. Let’s think back to last lesson.
In your books write down whether you think King John was a failure or a success, based on the information from last lesson, and one reason why you think this.
What did you write down?
So, according to what we know so far, overall was John a failure or a success?

4. Let’s remind ourselves of who J. Holt was…
So, why on earth does historian Holt think that King John was a ‘success’?
Over the years most historians have tended to say that John’s reign was a failure.
“John represents a standard of success which was never equalled in the medieval period.” – J. Holt
(‘Most historians’ wouldn’t fit on the slide… here is six.)
Let’s remind ourselves of who J. Holt was…

5. It all goes back to the 1960s…
Books on King John:
The Northerners: A Study in the Reign of King John, (published in 1961);
Magna Carta, (published in 1965).
Views on King John:
“John represents a standard of success which was never equalled in the medieval period.”
James C. Holt was a Cambridge professor of medieval history and expert on the Magna Carta (‘Great Charter’); a landmark document on which King John signed away some of his powers to the barons. Holt wrote most of his works on King John during the 1960s. He was one of the pioneers (first people) to write about King John in a positive way.
It all goes back to the 1960s…
What reasons could Holt have for interpreting King John differently?

6. This evidence was known as the chronicles.
For most of history John was seen as a bad king. For example, we know that Morris refers to King John as a ‘villain’.
However, most historians who have written about John in this way have done so subsequently (that is, they were born well after King John died – after all, King John died 800 years ago, whereas Morris is only in his early 40s!).
Therefore, historians writing about John have had to rely heavily on evidence written about King John at the time (sometimes referred to as primary sources).
This evidence was known as the chronicles.

7. Below is a picture of Matthew Paris, a well-known chronicler.
These chronicles were written by chroniclers, many of whom were monks. However, they were also the main historians of the medieval period.
Below is a picture of Matthew Paris, a well-known chronicler.
It was through the writings of these men that most modern historians learnt about King John.

8. Which leads us to our question for today…
However, in the 1960s historians, such as Holt, began to question how reliable some of these chronicles really were.
Holt was a revisionist historian. This means that he wanted to reinterpret / revise the previously long-held views of King John (remember ‘re’ words mean ‘to do something again).
Which leads us to our question for today…

9. Chronic damage: How far can we trust the Chroniclers of King John?

10. First, you will need to draw the following table in your book.
Fault
Which sources give evidence of this fault?
John was cruel
John was greedy for money
John was not religious
John was a poor war leader
Other faults (be specific)

11. For this task you will also need this sheet:

12. Exactly like these two did!
Your first task is to read through the chronicler’s writings, located on this sheet.
As you read each source highlight/underline any positives or negatives that each one says about King John. 1 4 1 2 3 5 1 2 4 5 2 3
Then, fill in your table (above) by putting the number of the source in the box next to one of John’s faults.
For example, if Source 1 describes King John as greedy I would put ‘1’ in the box next to ‘John was greedy for money’.
And so on…
Exactly like these two did!

13. Task: Fill in the evidence table.
Write at least one sentence explaining how each of the chroniclers describes King John (add quotes if you can – historians do this all the time!).
Extension:
Why do you think the chroniclers were so harsh towards King John? Create a list of as many reasons as you can.

14. So what did the chroniclers think of King John?
If this is the evidence which most historians have used to learn about King John, it is not hard to imagine why ‘most historians’ have considered King John to be a bad king.
But, is what the chroniclers wrote really that reliable?

15. First, you will need to draw the following table in your book.
Source
Reliability rating
Reasons for rating
Source 1 & 5– Matthew Paris
Source 2 – Gervase
Source 3 – Roger of Wendover
Source 4 – Monk at Barnwell

16. For this task you will also need this sheet:

17. Historians can’t just believe everything they read… remember people have different interpretations (remember the criteria we learnt about in lesson 1). Therefore, it is the job of the historian to not only find evidence, but to find out about the person who wrote the evidence.
That way they should be able to work out whether their interpretation is reliable (trustworthy), unreliable (not trustworthy) or somewhere in between.

18. Exactly like these two did!
AS you read through each one highlight/underline any criteria for explaining why the chroniclers interpretations might be either reliable or unreliable.
Your task is to read through the backgrounds of each of the chroniclers in order to work out how reliable their writings on King John are.
Instructions.
He did not like John after he
argued with the Pope.
Then, fill in your table (above) by putting a score out of 5 (1 being totally trustworthy, and 5 being totally untrustworthy) and a reason for this score next to each chronicler.
For example, I might put ‘3’ next to Matthew Paris because he wasn’t around at the time of King John, and as a monk did not like King John for arguing with the Pope.
Exactly like these two did!

19. Task: Fill in the reliability table.*
*make sure you read each background carefully, and that you give good justifiable reasons for your ratings!
Extension: Which chronicler’s interpretation is most reliable & why?

20. So, how reliable were the chroniclers of King John?
In your books write: The evidence provided by the chroniclers of King John is (mostly / partially) (reliable / unreliable) because…
(Chronicler A)’s account of King John may well be an unreliable portrayal because…
However, (Chronicler B)’s interpretation appears more reliable because…

21. Resources

22. What does the evidence say about John?
Look at the sources and answer the questions.
Source 5 – The picture was drawn by Matthew Paris, the monk who wrote Source 1.
Source 1 – Written by Matthew Paris, a monk from the monastery at St Albans, near London.
“John lost Normandy and many other lands because of his own laziness. He always took money from his people and destroyed their property. He hated his wife and she him. He gave orders that her lovers were to be throttled on her bed. John was jealous of many barons and seduced their daughters and sisters. He was a tyrant.”
John’s crown looks as if it is about to fall off his head. This gives the impressions that John was not in control of his kingdom.
John’s body blocks out much of the church in the background. John was criticised for ignoring the rights of Church and treating it badly.
Source 2 – Written by Gervase, a monk from Canterbury in Kent.
“After arguing with the Pope, John ordered the few monks who remained at Canterbury, including the blind and crippled, out of the country. He said that all monks were public enemies. The whole of England was taxed heavily. He imprisoned many, bound them in irons and only released them in return for money.”
Source 3 – Written by Roger of Wendover, a monk from the monastery at St Albans.
“The King’s men dragged priests from their horses and robbed and beat them. The King’s judges refused to help the priests. The servants of a sheriff on the Welsh borders came to the royal court with a prisoner who had robbed and murdered a priest. They asked the King what they should do with him. John said, ‘He has killed an enemy of mine. Untie him and let him go.’ In 1209, a priest called Geoffrey said it was not safe for priests to work for the King any longer. John heard of this and Geoffrey was imprisoned in chains, clad in a cloak of lead and starved. Weakened and crushed, Geoffrey died an agonising death.”
Source 4 – Written by a monk from Barnwell, near Cambridge.
“John was a great ruler, but not a happy one. He experienced good and bad times. He stole from his own people. He trusted strangers, but not the people he ruled over. In the end, he was deserted by his own men. Few people mourned when he died.’
John is sitting on a campaign stool, not a throne. This shows that he was always fighting wars and the country was never at peace.

23. Can we trust the Chroniclers?
Look at the backgrounds and assess their reliability.
Below are the backgrounds for each of the chroniclers. Remember to check them carefully.
To test the reliability of these sources you will need to carry out the following checks:
Check 1: Who?
Who wrote the source? What is their background? Were they prejudiced (biased) against the person that they were writing about?
Check 2: When?
When was the source written? Did the author know the person, or witness the event?
Check 3: Why?
Why was the source written? Does it aim to make a person look good or bad? Does it aim to produce a fair and accurate account of the past?
Check 4: What?
Is it full of fact (something that is known to have happened) or opinion (a point of view)? Do any specific words or phrases show that the author disliked the person that they are writing about? Has the author made anything up?
Decision time: Give each source a ‘reliability score’ out of 5.
1 = Totally trustworthy and reliable.
2 = Very reliable.
3 = Quite reliable.
4 = Mainly unreliable.
5 = Totally unreliable.
Source 3 was written by Roger of Wendover ten years after John’s death. Roger was a monk at St Albans Abbey. He never met John, but thought John was a tyrant, who ruled his people unfairly and cruelly. Most of Roger’s work is probably based on gossip. Many barons visited his abbey and told him stories, which he used in his chronicle. His work contains mistakes. Roger describes how John killed a priest called Geoffrey, but records show Geoffrey was alive ten years after John died! Roger also claims that John pardoned a prisoner who had murdered a priest, but records show that John ordered anyone who injured a churchman to be hanged from the nearest oak tree.
Source 1 and 5 are by Matthew Paris. Matthew was not even born when John became king, and he never met John. He took over from Roger as the chronicler at St Albans Abbey in 1236 and copied Roger’s opinions about John. Some of Matthew’s stories are supported by documents, but his descriptions of John are often even further from the truth than Roger’s. Matthew and Roger supported the barons against john partly because they hated any type of taxation.
Source 2 was written by Gervase, a monk at Canterbury Cathedral from He was well informed about events because many travellers passed through Canterbury on their way to France. Gervase is usually uncritical of the people he writes about.
These sources were all written by monks. Nearly all sources from the Middle Ages were written by monks. Monks were part of the Catholic Church, so the Pope was their leader. King John was very unpopular with the Church because of his long quarrel with the Pope. As a result, most monks did not have anything good to say about John.
Source 4 was written by a monk from Barnwell, near Cambridge, probably between 1220 and The writer generally wrote about people and events objectively. This means that he did not allow his own personal feelings to influence what he was writing. Even when John fell out with the Church, he states that he does not believe that it was all John’s fault.