StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Honest question.

Because to me all he managed to do was to go off gallivanting in the Holy Land (committing a few atrocities and backstabbings along the way and when he was there), behaving like a massive jerk to his allies, then on the return voyage getting captured by said ex-allies, whining about the conditions of his (not at all severe) captivity, having to pay 3times the value of the annual income of the crown as ransom, then waging a war in France which eventually turned into a disaster.

So why is he regarded so fondly?

I'd suggest it has a lot more to do with Robin Hood than it does history itself.

Yeah, I think it's a result of focusing on the period and him being the English guy.

Well, French. He and Philip are colorful characters, and I doubt many regular people know about Richards activities on the way to Outremer.

Myth and historical embellishment, mostly. No different than practically any country, really.

Thanas wrote:So why is he regarded so fondly?

Probably because of his long and illustrious record of success in war, relatively speaking.

In the underrated Robin and Marian (1976) and Ridley Scott's somewhat dull Robin Hood (2010) featured fictional versions of Richard the Lion Heart who were more like the real Richard as described by Thanas; the most positive depiction of Richard the Lion Heart was in Walt Disney's Robin Hood (1973).

Christ, can we ban him from adjectives?

There are probably less than half a dozen English kings regular people remember, and thanks to Shakespeare, the Crusade and his colourful life, Richard is one of them. I mean William, Richard, James 2, Henry 8, the ev0l Richard 3... they're more 'interesting' than Edward the Confessor (or all the others).

Do any English members have any anecdotes about the positive attitude? Is it a military thing, a personal thing, or what?

Charles II and George III are never far from people's minds, either.

I think Charles 2 is less famous than Cromwell (but I'm not English). Good old George III is famous in a different way, not the semi-idealised way Richard is apparently.

Stark wrote:Christ, can we ban him from adjectives?

I'm saying that there are two movies out there that depict Richard in a less than flattering light even though they're embellished fiction, both Robin and Marian and 2010's Robin Hood show Richard's military campaign in France as a pointless, gory quagmire with Richard dying from an arrow wound because of his own foolhardiness.

Richard the Lion Heart was supposedly fondly remembered amongst English people likely because he violently fought against the traditional enemies of "England", the "French" and Islamic people from the Middle East, with his brother (King John the 1st) popularily perceived as being cowardly, unsuccessful, and scheming.

Stark wrote:I think Charles 2 is less famous than Cromwell (but I'm not English). Good old George III is famous in a different way, not the semi-idealised way Richard is apparently.

I don't think any of the Stuarts have the cultural impact as Hank 8 or Liz 1.

I mean, HBO recently did a miniseries on the Tudors; who really cares about 17th century England? Well, other than
the popularization of Guy Fawkes because of V for Vendetta, but that has more to do with modern anarchists looking for a role model, not the role
of Catholics in Tudor or Stuart England.

Stark wrote:Christ, can we ban him from adjectives?

There are probably less than half a dozen English kings regular people remember, and thanks to Shakespeare, the Crusade and his colourful life, Richard is one of them. I mean William, Richard, James 2, Henry 8, the ev0l Richard 3... they're more 'interesting' than Edward the Confessor (or all the others).

I think the only ones that spring to mind for us Britishers are (in rough order) Victoria, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. I could talk about others obviously, but I suspect your average guy on the street wouldn't know much beyond those.

Women don't count as kings!

Speaking of the Stuarts, maybe there's a cultural blind spot with Scotland; Kings famous for internal stuff seem less 'popular' than those with foreign wars, tits, age of exploration, etc. The nature of the UK historically might make some kings too 'complex' for the popular mind.

Richard the Lionheart is well remembered, I'm not sure he's particularly fondly remembered by the average Brit. Basic education only covers what he was responsible for in the crusades.

If he is fondly remembered it's more likely the result of word association than any knowledge of the character. Lionheart and some mental embellishment = that guy was awesome.

I think that Richard benefited from his brother: under Richard, England was the center of the so-called Angevin Empire (actually conquered by his ancestor, but he still kept it intact), under his brother John the empire lost many territories in France and England got bankrupted. Quite easy to idealize the king of the old times of power.

Lionheart and some mental embellishment = that guy was awesome.

This pretty much. He was always the saviour in the Robin Hood stories I remember, coming back to save Robin from Evil King John.
Other than that we know he was in the Crusades, which mean attacking someone else, and probably winning, you don't get called Lionheart for losing, right?

That's pretty much all I knew about him as a child, I don't think I learned about him much if at all at school.

I learned plenty about Cromwell and Charles II, we had a school trip to an awesome Civil War museum, with lots of armour, guys in armour and costumes and finally a debate about whether or not we'd have executed Charles II.

I was one of the only ones who said yes, out of interest.

Sinewmire wrote:I learned plenty about Cromwell and Charles II, we had a school trip to an awesome Civil War museum, with lots of armour, guys in armour and costumes and finally a debate about whether or not we'd have executed Charles II.

I was one of the only ones who said yes, out of interest.

You mean Charles I, right?

Oops. My bad (yes I know I'm not Sinewmire, but I meant Charles I in my first post on the thread).

As pointed out, being the guy who saves the day in Robin Hood, as well as the last English king to hold such a large part of France before his brother lost it can only raise his reputation -just as Clinton is remembered fondly because he was also succeeded by an incompetent sadist who ruined the empire.

Another reason might be that most of Richard's depredations were in what is now France, Cyprus, Israel and Lebanon. If he had done in England what he did overseas, he might be considered the monster he was, rather than the Victorian-era superhero Walter Scott made him out to be.

Or maybe not. Apparently, the reputation medieval kings earned had nothing to do with whether they were good or bad, but on whether they were winners or losers. Just like with modern politicians.

I personally think it's a shame we don't really learn anything about Alfred the Great in the UK, this is the guy who's dream it was the unite England to form the country I live in today and was responsible for beating back the danish invasion of Wessex, preventing England from becoming a danish speaking colony. And what do we know about him? He burnt the cakes.

I blame the Victorians....they are responsable for many of the historical misconceptions that became part of British popular culture particulary with regard to the English Civil War and Charles I/Cromwell.

Why do we like Richard? Because he was a war-mad Frenchman who visited twice and tried to sell London to finance a crus- wait. No.

As others have said, he's remembered fondly for the Robin Hood stories, but if you actually look into it... he was as much, if not more of a failure as an actual ruler of the country than John. That said though, Henry II would be a hard act for any ruler to follow.

It would be interesting to see more about Alfred, as Manus said, but also Aethelstan. After all, he actually acheieved what Alfred had merely hoped for and became the 'King of all Britain'

I find the Stuarts interesting myself, but mostly for their relationship with Parliament. Or not, in the case of Charles I.

It still is a relationship even if it involves a painful (but thankfully short) seperation period.

Richard the lionheart isn't as revered as king henry VIII, Elizabeth I or even Queen Victoria. A large part of King Richard is remembered because of the robin hood stories, at the time it was impossible for people at the medieval ages to know of Richard's immaturity and his atrocities. Given John was actually doing his job (trying to regulate taxes which the barons did not like one bit) and that Richard came back from a holy war depicted richard as brave and valiant. Not to mention that as much John was as good as a administrator, he was terrible at war and lacked commanding respect to the barons.

When looking at things into perspective, the medieval ages was about control of territory and control of religion. Religion was not just important in sake of faith itself but that religion at that time with monasteries were the few remaining areas where people could be educated, and with territory where the enemies of England was Scotland as well as France then it was more important to have a ruler that had shown he was a man connected with religion and he could defend and expand territory. Richard had both of these, john had none.

Of course popular media has played on the myth of robin hood and included the sins of robin hood and the heroics of king richard.

From what i understand Napolean is still popular and regarded as a hero in France because he fingerprinted nationalism of france and was a great war leader, despite his actions.

Napoleon accomplished great things that were or are persistant even today. Richard less so.