and
Capetian holdings in France. Blue: French royal domains, Yellow: Church lordships, Red:
Fiefs held by the king of England in vassalage from the French crown, Green: other fiefs held on behalf of the French crown In the aftermath of John's death, William Marshal was declared the protector of the nine-year-old Henry III. The civil war continued until loyalist victories at the battles of
Lincoln and
Dover in 1217. Louis gave up his claim to the English throne and signed the
Treaty of Lambeth. Henry III continued his attempts to reclaim Normandy and Anjou until 1259, but John's continental losses and the consequent growth of Capetian power in the 13th century proved to mark a "turning point in European history". John's niece Eleanor of Brittany would remain treated with honours due a princess, but according to his will, she would never be released from prison, for she might have a potential claim to the throne of Henry III. John's first wife, Isabella of Gloucester, was released from imprisonment in 1214; she remarried twice, and died in 1217. John's second wife, Isabella of Angoulême, left England for
Angoulême soon after the King's death; she became a powerful regional leader, but largely abandoned her children by John. Their eldest son, Henry III, ruled as King of England for the majority of the 13th century. Their other son,
Richard of Cornwall, became a noted European leader and ultimately the
King of the Romans in the Holy Roman Empire. Their daughter
Joan became Queen of Scotland on her marriage to Alexander II. The youngest daughter,
Eleanor, married William Marshal's son, also called William, and later the famous English rebel
Simon de Montfort. By various mistresses, John had eight, possibly nine, sons—
Richard, Oliver, John, Geoffrey, Henry, Osbert Gifford, Eudes, Bartholomew and probably Philip—and two or three daughters—Joan, Maud and probably Isabel. Of these, Joan became the most famous, marrying Prince Llywelyn the Great of Wales.
Historiography Historical interpretations of John have been subject to considerable change over the centuries. Medieval
chroniclers provided the first contemporary, or near contemporary, histories of John's reign. One group of chroniclers wrote early in John's life, or around the time of his accession, including
Richard of Devizes,
William of Newburgh,
Roger of Hoveden and
Ralph de Diceto. These historians were generally unsympathetic to John's behaviour under Richard's rule, but slightly more positive towards the very earliest years of John's reign. Reliable accounts of the middle and later parts of John's reign are more limited, with
Gervase of Canterbury and
Ralph of Coggeshall writing the main accounts; neither of them were positive about John's performance as king. Much of John's later, negative reputation was established by two chroniclers writing after his death,
Roger of Wendover and
Matthew Paris, the latter claiming that John attempted conversion to Islam in exchange for military aid from the
Almohad ruler
Muhammad al-Nasir—a story modern historians consider untrue. In the 16th century, political and religious changes altered the attitude of historians towards John.
Tudor historians were generally favourably inclined towards the King, focusing on his opposition to the Papacy and his promotion of the special rights and prerogatives of a king. Revisionist histories written by
John Foxe,
William Tyndale and
Robert Barnes portrayed John as an early Protestant hero, and Foxe included the King in his
Book of Martyrs.
John Speed's
Historie of Great Britaine in 1632 praised John's "great renown" as a king; he blamed the bias of medieval chroniclers for the King's poor reputation. 's
Book of Martyrs, officially titled
Acts and Monuments, which took a positive view of John's reign By the Victorian period in the 19th century, historians were more inclined to draw on the judgements of the chroniclers and to focus on John's moral personality.
Kate Norgate, for example, argued that John's downfall had been due not to his failure in war or strategy, but due to his "almost superhuman wickedness", whilst James Ramsay blamed John's family background and his cruel personality for his downfall. Historians in the "
Whiggish" tradition, focusing on documents such as the
Domesday Book and Magna Carta, trace a progressive and
universalist course of political and economic development in England over the medieval period. These historians were often inclined to see John's reign, and his signing of Magna Carta in particular, as a positive step in the constitutional development of England, despite the flaws of the King himself. In the 1940s, new interpretations of John's reign began to be published, based on research into documents dating to his reign, such as
pipe rolls, charters, court documents and similar primary records. Notably, an essay by
Vivian Galbraith in 1945 proposed a "new approach" to understanding the ruler. The use of recorded evidence was combined with an increased scepticism about two of the most colourful chroniclers of John's reign, Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris. In many cases, the detail provided by these chroniclers, both writing after John's death, was challenged by modern historians. Interpretations of Magna Carta and the role of the rebel barons in 1215 have been significantly revised: Although the charter's symbolic, constitutional value for later generations is unquestionable, in the context of John's reign, most historians now consider it a failed peace agreement between "partisan" factions. There has been increasing debate about the nature of John's Irish policies. Specialists in Irish medieval history, such as Sean Duffy, have challenged the conventional narrative established by
Lewis Warren, suggesting that Ireland was less stable by 1216 than was previously supposed. Most historians today, including John's recent biographers Ralph Turner and Lewis Warren, argue that John was an unsuccessful monarch, but note that his failings were exaggerated by 12th- and 13th-century chroniclers.
John Gillingham, author of a major biography of Richard I, follows this line too, although he considers John a less effective general than do Turner or Warren, and describes him "one of the worst kings ever to rule England". Bradbury takes a moderate line, but suggests that in recent years modern historians have been overly lenient towards John's numerous faults. Popular historian
Frank McLynn maintains a counter-revisionist perspective on John, arguing that the King's modern reputation amongst historians is "bizarre", and that, as a monarch, John "fails almost all those [tests] that can be legitimately set". According to
C. Warren Hollister, "The dramatic ambivalence of his personality, the passions that he stirred among his own contemporaries, the very magnitude of his failures, have made him an object of endless fascination to historians and biographers."
Popular representations '' Popular representations of John first began to emerge during the Tudor period, mirroring the revisionist histories of the time. By contrast, Shakespeare's
King John, a relatively anti-Catholic play that draws on
The Troublesome Reign for its source material, offers a more "balanced, dual view of a complex monarch as both a proto-Protestant victim of Rome's machinations and as a weak, selfishly motivated ruler".
Anthony Munday's play
The Downfall and The Death of Robert Earl of Huntington portrays many of John's negative traits, but adopts a positive interpretation of the King's stand against the Roman Catholic Church, in line with the contemporary views of the Tudor monarchs. By the middle of the 17th century, plays such as
Robert Davenport's
King John and Matilda, although based largely on the earlier Elizabethan works, were transferring the role of Protestant champion to the barons and focusing more on the tyrannical aspects of John's behaviour. Nineteenth-century fictional depictions of John were heavily influenced by Sir
Walter Scott's historical romance,
Ivanhoe, which presented "an almost totally unfavourable picture" of the King; the work drew on 19th-century histories of the period and on Shakespeare's play. Scott's work influenced the late-19th-century children's writer
Howard Pyle's book
The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, which in turn established John as the principal villain within the traditional
Robin Hood narrative. During the 20th century, John was normally depicted in fictional books and films alongside Robin Hood.
Sam De Grasse's role as John in the black-and-white
1922 film version shows John committing numerous atrocities and acts of torture.
Claude Rains played John in the
1938 colour version alongside
Errol Flynn, starting a trend for films to depict John as an "effeminate ... arrogant and cowardly stay-at-home". The character of John acts either to highlight the virtues of King Richard, or contrasts with the
Sheriff of Nottingham, who is usually the "swashbuckling villain" opposing Robin. Popular works that depict John beyond the Robin Hood legends, such as
James Goldman's play and later film,
The Lion in Winter, set in 1183, commonly present him as an "effete weakling", in this instance contrasted with the more masculine Henry II, or as a tyrant, as in
A. A. Milne's poem for children, "King John's Christmas". ==Issue==