Shattered Youth

The book I'm reading right now is entitled The Story of Britain: from the Romans to the Present: A Narrative History. So far it's really cool. It's history, but it reads fairly well. Not too sleep-inducing. Anyway, last night I just got through King John, and I'll be moving on to the Plantagenet kings next. Of the chapters I read last night, it's the last two I want to talk about: Richard the Lionheart and John. I also want to talk about Disney.

Now then. I'm not going to pretend to be astonished to learn that the bulk of Disney movies/stories, particularly if based on actual historical events, are very much historically inaccurate. This does not come as a shock. Still. I have to admit to being a little bummed out last night, in reading about the sons of Henry II, to learn that my absolute favorite Disney classic, Robin Hood, is really quite a historical mess. There's very little mention of Robin Hood himself in The Story of Britain, which is fine. He is mentioned, however, in conjunction with Prince John, as a means of demonstrating the historical characterization of John as the snivelling, money-hungry, bad-guy younger brother of the fabulous Coeur de Lion. This is not to say that he was a saint. He wasn't that great a king, really. But here's the shocking part: neither was Richard. Let's look at this through the lens of Robin Hood, shall we?

First of all, I was interested to learn that the concept of an English sheriff originated from the Anglo-Saxon times, died out for a bit after the Norman invasion, and was re-instated (I think) by Henry II. Moving on, though. Robin Hood tells us that the noble and glorious King Richard is on Crusade and that evil Prince John has taken over the throne, where he delights in taxing the heart and soul out of the good people of Nottingham, correct? Peripherally, the implication is that the Queen Mother, Eleanor of Acquitaine, is not in the picture, and that John was a mama's boy. I always got the impression that Eleanor was already dead during the action of the cartoon. Ready for the "historically inaccurate" part? Here goes.

Richard was indeed on Crusade, but John did not "take over the throne". He was given jurisdiction (by Richard) over some parts of England and France. He did become King after Richard's death, but that's neither here nor there. Richard was on Crusade for a while, and then on the way home he was captured and held for ransom by European enemies. All that taxation? It was actually Richard who introduced exorbitant taxes during the period in order to pay for his Crusade. The taxation continued, egged on by Eleanor in order to pay Richard's ransom. Eleanor was not only still around, she actually outlived her son Richard. And while the book doesn't make any mention of John's relationship with his mother, there's quite a bit of history to tell us that John was his father's favorite to the point where Henry II actually tried to take lands and money away from his other sons to give to John. Being the youngest, John had no inheritance for himself.

The truth is that neither Richard nor John was the King their father was; they were just different. Richard was hardly ever IN England, being off on Crusade or worrying about his French lands and scrapping with the French king. John was actually very present and involved in his kingdom even at a local level, but he was greedy and a bit tyrannical a la the Disney version.

Again, it's not a revelation that a Disney cartoon, intended for kids, is not the way to learn one's history. I guess what struck me was just that this was my favorite Disney movie. I still watch it every couple of months. Prior to last night, it was pretty much everything I knew about that particular bit of British history. And as a kid, certainly, it never occurs to you that it's not accurate; I guess some things hold over into adulthood. Prince John was evil, King Richard was good, Robin Hood was a hero, and so on. Sure, it's just a movie, and a kid's one at that. As an adult, I do know that things are rarely so black-and-white, and that movies of a certain type are made to entertain rather than teach. I guess I'm just a little sad that one of my favorite parts of childhood has been clouded a bit by shades of grey, and that I will probably never look at it in quite the same way again.