If this were a modern-day event, investigators would consider the death of the King as suspicious. It coincided with the loss of the crown jewels. It looks like murder and robbery. We cannot be sure of the cause of death. An autopsy is impossible, there is no forensics, and records from the time are sketchy and unreliable. Assuming it is a murder, investigators would look for suspects and evidence of their involvement. Again, with no reliable records of individuals' actions, the evidence that can be examined is circumstantial. The key individuals with the opportunity to carry out the plan are known. Investigators would next look for motives. They would also see who benefitted from the crime–follow the money. The critical actors in this conspiracy are known. Did they have a motive, and did they benefit?
Why might there have been a plot against King John?
King John was a failing leader. Whilst he had received some support throughout his reign, there must have been a point where those supporters saw the real possibility of the king capitulating and England falling into the hands of the French.
Faced with the amassed French forces and imminent invasion of Prince Louis, John agreed with Pandulf, the Pope’s envoy, at the Templar church Dover to hand over England to the Catholic church, ruling the country in fielty and making ongoing payments to Rome.
Once England belonged to the Pope, he pressured the King of France to persuade his son to cancel his plans to invade the country. Philip of France refused to comply, saying that John had stolen the nation by killing Arthur, the rightful heir to the English throne, and therefore he could not gift stolen property to the pontiff. Louis went ahead with his invasion, and war consumed England. The French Prince rapidly took hold of much of the South of England, the East of England, and London. The rebel Barons and the King of Scotland took the country's North. John was penned into the west country and the midlands. John and his supporters valiantly fought their way around the territories recapturing castles, retaking land, and punishing those who supported Louis. But with many Barons defecting to the invader, including some of the strongest, John's task must have seemed insurmountable.
What potential outcomes were there?
John could beat Louis to retain the rule over England. If he were to win, he would have a significant problem managing all the Barons that turned against him. They would be expected to pay huge fines and pledge their allegiance. John had a history of demanding hostages to ensure continued obedience but a dire record of abuse of hostages. Managing the country afterwards might have been impossible if John were to win the war.
Louis could win and take control of England. This was looking highly likely. The French forces were strong, and with the support of Barons, including William Marshal (son of the Earl Marshal), and William Longspee, King John’s illegitimate half-brother, the chances of John ultimately overcoming the invaders were in doubt. The King’s resources and resolve would inevitably be ground down. This would not end well for his supporters or him. At best, they would have their titles and lands removed and would be exiled. At worst, they would be killed in battle or executed. Louis was already showing his hand by installing French castellans when he captured fortifications from the British.
A compromise or truce. In these times, a regular feature of wars was truces—agreements to discontinue fighting and stick with currently held territories. This would be an improbable outcome. John was well known for reneging on agreements and was highly untrustworthy. Likewise, Louis was similarly dishonourable, and his duplicitousness reportedly caused his ultimate downfall in England. Neither Louis nor John would be happy for a settlement. At best, this would be a temporary solution.
None of these outcomes was good for the country, the people, the Barons, the king, and most importantly, for England's new “owner”, the Pope. The situation called for an alternative outcome where those with the most interests at stake would benefit. What happened was possibly the only potential good outcome for those with the most to lose. If it happened by chance, it was serendipitous. This fortunate outcome has to be the first clue that the story unfolded was planned and not just lucky.
Evidence of a plot
First of all, what evidence is there that there was a plot? Evidence may be a strong word. Suggestions or clues are better, and much of the information available would be classified as hearsay today. The hints that exist are subtle and complex and tricky to present coherently. But they are there and should not be ignored. They include motives, the actions of individuals before and after the event, cover-ups, missing evidence, and the rewards gained from the death of the King.
The history of the times is full of schemes, plots, duplicitousness, and murder for gain. No written record of any conspiracy against the king exists, and the king's death being anything other than natural causes, was not raised until 80 years after the event. Yet, regicide must certainly not be out of the question.
The cause of death
It was not unusual to die from dysentery, even for kings. Henry the Young King (1183), Louis IX of France (1270), Edward I of England (1307), Philip V of France (1322), and Henry V of England (1422) all reportedly died of dysentery. Maybe Edward the Black Prince didn’t die from chronic dysentery after all | Ars Technica. Dysentery is caused most commonly by food poisoning. Bacteria such as Salmonella or Shigella in food that is not correctly cooked can cause it. Shellfish is a well-known risk, and the Wash would have been a source of mussels and cockles that could have been served to the King at Lynn or Swineshead.
But other things cause extreme diarrhoea, such as heavy metal poisoning. The heavy metals most commonly associated with the poisoning of humans are lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium. All would have been available then, and arsenic was undoubtedly known as a poison. “Dioscorides, a Greek physician in the court of the Roman Emperor Nero, described arsenic as a poison in the first century. Its ideal properties for sinister uses included its lack of color, odor or taste when mixed in food or drink and its ubiquitous distribution in nature, which made it readily available to all classes of society. Symptoms of arsenic poisoning were difficult to detect, since they could mimic food poisoning and other common disorders. There could be no doubt about arsenic’s efficacy as a single large dose, which provoked violent abdominal cramping, diarrhea and vomiting, often followed by death from shock.” Arsenic: A Murderous History | Dartmouth Toxic Metals
If we accept that John had dysentery symptoms, there are two possibilities: he, unfortunately, acquired food poisoning or was poisoned. Chroniclers of the death of John are split on this subject. Some say it was dysentery; some say it was poisoning and even name the monk at Swineshead that administered it. That there is even a suggestion of poisoning is a clue towards the existence of a plot. That this was not raised until some time after the event suggests a perfect cover-up was in place and possibly that no chronicler of the time would dare tell such a crime whilst the ringleaders were still alive.
The death of King John
King John died at Newark Castle on the evening of the 18th/19th of October, 1216. Who was with him? We do not know for sure.
Some modern writers claim that William The Earl Marshall was present: “He died during a fearsome thunderstorm on the night of October 18th and 19th, aged 48 or 49. Some of his few remaining supporters were with him, most notably the highly respected William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke.” Death of King John | History Today But records suggest that the Earl Marshal was on the other side of the country at Gloucester, where he had been for some time.
Other claims for who was present include:
"In October 1216 King John lay dying in the episcopal fortress of Newark. About him stood a few loyal servants - Bishop Peter of Winchester, John of Monmouth, Walter and Roger de Clifford, and John Marshal." #203 - William Marshal, knight-errant, - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library These named people are:
“Peter des Roches (died 9 June 1238) (Latinised as Petrus de Rupibus ("Peter from the rocks")) was bishop of Winchester in the reigns of King John of England and his son Henry III.” He was a staunch and unswerving supporter of John. Peter des Roches - Wikipedia
“When the king died in 1216, John of Monmouth was present at his bedside and was one of the executors of his will.” John was also an ever-present supporter of John. John of Monmouth - Wikipedia
John Marshal was the illegitimate son of William Earl Marshal’s uncle (his father’s elder brother John). John Marshal was with King John much of the time throughout his reign. He was considered a faithful supporter of John.
Walter de Clifford (died 1263), feudal baron of Clifford in Herefordshire, was a Welsh Marcher Lord. Walter de Clifford (died 1263) - Wikipedia
Roger de Clifford was Walter’s younger brother who founded the line of Northumbrian Cliffords. He was the second son of Walter (multiple generations with the same name is very confusing). Walter de Clifford (died 1221) - Wikipedia
Also evidenced as being present is the Abbot of Croxton.
“The abbot of Croxton asked John where he wanted to be buried in case his illness proved mortal.” #290 - John, King of England. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library “he (John) reached Newark on horseback; there his disease gained ground, and he confessed himself and received the eucharist from the abbat (sic) of Croxton.” #384 - Roger of Wendover's Flowers of history : comprising ... v.2. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library Also: “As he lay dying at Newark on October 18th, 1216, Abbot Adam (1202-21) was brought from Croxton Abbey to act as his doctor and confessor. Adam was renowned as a famous medical practitioner in his day, and we can well believe that he, more than any other spiritual adviser, was best placed to act as John's confessor, for John appeared to have a special affection for Croxton and its abbey.” Wayback Machine (archive.org) Croxton Abbey is approximately 20 miles from Newark - half a day's hard ride.
Possibly present:
It is recorded that John joined his armies at Cambridge before he went to Lincoln. We can assume these would still be with him when he travelled North to Newark. “He had marched across the midlands unopposed and joined forces with his most capable captain, Faulkes de Breaute.” #288 - John, King of England. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library It is likely, therefore, that Faulkes de Breaute, a named executor of the will, was present.
There is no complete record of who was with the King at his death. This seems unusual but perhaps not suspicious. It would, though, have been informative to have a complete picture.
The Will
The testament of King John was recorded in Newark over the last days of his life. It was a small single sheet of parchment. The entire contents are at King John's Will (intriguing-history.com). It is a concise document that urges the executors to do the right thing by those he had wronged and complete the necessities to ensure his place in heaven. It leaves plenty of scope for those that followed to do what they thought best.
It named 12 arbiters and administrators: the lord G(uala), by the grace of God, cardinal priest of the title of St Martin and legate of the apostolic see; the lord Peter bishop of Winchester; the lord Richard bishop of Chichester; the lord Silvester bishop of Worcester; Brother Aimery de St-Maur; William Marshal earl of Pembroke; Ranulf earl of Chester; William earl Ferrers; William Brewer; Walter de Lacy and John of Monmouth; Savaric de Mauléon; Falkes de Bréauté.
At the bottom of the will are nine strips for witness seals to be affixed—the central large one for the King’s seal and four on either side. The document is still stored at Worcester Cathedral. All nine of the seals are missing. We don’t know when the seals were removed. It could have been an avid collector, or it could have been a deliberate act of obfuscation.
This is yet another intriguing coincidence. We have no clear record of who was present at the death of John, and there are no clues from the testament that John recorded before he died. I don’t believe it is wrong to question why this may be. That the King died and no detailed record exists seems disrespectful and unlikely. That all the seals on the will are missing seems more than a coincidence. When taken together, these two facts seem more like a cover-up.
Treasure
The beginning of this story was the legend of the loss of treasure. Did a treasure exist to be lost? This is very difficult to pin down precisely, but it seems certain there was a loss of treasure. Exactly how extensive the treasure was will never be known. Items of the crown jewels were recorded as being part of John’s baggage train, and they disappeared, never to be seen again.
The biography of William Marshal goes to great lengths to explain how John emptied his coffers in the pursuit of war against the Barons and Louis. The cost of mercenaries taking part in the siege of Rochford alone was said to have almost bankrupted him.
It is recorded that John had provided Kings Lynn with treasure and stores as a refuge for his supporters. But then it is also recorded that whilst John was in the South West, the Baronial forces left London for East Anglia, where they captured Colchester, occupied Norwich and reduced Kings Lynn.#287 - John, King of England. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library There is no mention anywhere of John reaching Kings Lynn in October and finding it destroyed with his provisions and treasure stolen.
We do know for sure that some crown treasure was lost forever. We also know that after assuming the position of Regent, William Marshal struggled for money to fund the young king’s first years. He raised funds by selling and pawning jewels and treasure brought out of storage at various castles. What is the truth is so difficult to establish. What does seem to be consistent is that something was lost in Lincolnshire. Where it went and exactly what it was remains a mystery.
The Defecting Barons
During 1215 and 1216, as the war for England raged, several Barons defected away from the King to Louis. Some, such as William D’Aubigny of Belvoir, took some persuading to join the battle on the side of the French Prince. Having done so, his battle experience was used in the defence of Rochester Castle. But with no support from his fellow rebel Barons, it was not long before he was captured and imprisoned. The outcome of the conflict was far from certain, and the Barons would have wanted to be on the winning side when it was all over.
Other Barons seem to have switched sides by design. Senior supporters of John appear to have defected at a critical time, when their support could have swung the war in his favour, only to return to the English crown once John had died. There is little condemnation of their actions recorded and less record of them being censured for their defection. Instead, they seem to have been handsomely rewarded.
William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury (1167 - 1226):
William was the illegitimate son of Henry II, King of England. The illegitimate half-brother of King John and King Richard before him, this was a man with a chip on his shoulder. He named Ida de Tosny, who married Roger Bigod, 2nd Earl of Norfolk, as his mother. Henry acknowledged him as his son. He gave him the honour of Appleby, Lincolnshire, in 1188, making him a Baron.
He spent much time fighting for King John in Poitou, Wales, and Ireland. In 1214 he was sent to support Otto IV of Germany in his invasion of France. He was captured in the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Bouvines.
When he returned to England, the Barons were revolting. William Longspee was ranked alongside William Earl Marshal as England's most capable military leader. He remained loyal to John, apart from a few months in 1216. At the beginning of June, he turned to Louis when it seemed he might have a chance at success. After John's death, he aligned with the Earl Marshal and fought at Lincoln. He had an influential role in government during the new King’s minority.
Under Henry III, he fought to defend the English possessions in Gascony. He returned to England in 1225. Shortly after, he was to die. Roger of Wendover (chronicler) alleged that Hubert de Burgh poisoned him. There is no other record of such an accusation. But this is interesting as Hubert was a staunch supporter of John, and Longspee is identified as a supporter of Hubert. (1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Salisbury, William Longsword, Earl of - Wikisource, the free online library) Perhaps Hubert blamed Longspee for his part in the death of John and, therefore, was party to his downfall.
William Marshal (son of Earl Marshall)
William was the eldest son of William the Earl Marshal. In 1215 he sided with the rebel Barons and became one of the executors of the Magna Carta. Because of this, he was excommunicated by the Pope.
William was married young to Alice de Bethune, who became the sole heiress of her father's lands and titles. This enabled William to build his position and a retinue of knights.
As the Baron's War raged through 1216, William was holding Worcester Castle, the forces of Louis having captured it. Rather helpfully, his father told him that Ranulf de Blondeville was on his way to retake the castle for the king, and he judiciously left before his arrival. Further talks between William and his father took place that summer.
It is not a stretch of the imagination and certainly is something that has been proposed before, that the two Williams conspired to ensure that one of them would be on the side of the winner of this dreadful war that was so damaging to the country. Protecting and securing their titles and lands this way was in their interests.
William seems to have had a minor role in the war on behalf of Louis but is sufficiently conspicuous enough to have had some control over how events unfolded. As soon as John died, William returned to his father’s side and pledged his allegiance to the young King Henry III.
William succeeded his father as Earl of Pembroke and Lord Marshal of England, becoming one of the most powerful nobles in the country. He fought alongside his father at the decisive Battle of Lincoln in 1217 and was at his side when he died in 1219. In 1225 he married Eleanor of England, the youngest child of King John.
Like his father before him, he was admitted to the order of the Templars and buried in Temple Church London. This does suggest a level of gratitude owed by the Templars to the Marshal family and certainly shows no enmity towards William Junior for his defection towards the end of John’s life.
Further defectors
The 5th Earl of Surrey, William de Warenne
So many Williams! This William was the cousin of King John, and he defected at the beginning of June 1216. He returned to the loyalist side in March 1217, four or five months after the king's death. There appear to be no significant penalties placed against him for his defection. In fact, he seems to have been rewarded. In 1225 he was married to William Earl Marshal’s daughter Maud whose husband Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk, had died.
William D’Aubigny, 3rd Earl of Arundel, also defected in June 1216. He did not return to the fold until after the Battle of Lincoln when it was clear that Louis would not be successful. I do not believe this other William was involved in any plot. He appears more interested in saving his skin as he was not a distinguished fighter. In 1218 he joined the fifth crusade, perhaps to atone for his disloyalty, and unfortunately died when making his way home. Also, it is worth noting that this William D'Aubigny, Earl of Arundel, differs from the Earl of Belvoir. They have the same name and come from the same town in France but are separate.
The return of the defectors
There was an attempt to mitigate the decisions of the defectors to turn coat once again and return to the side of the English king. Roger of Wendover #383 - Roger of Wendover's Flowers of history : comprising ... v.2. - Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library claims that the Viscount de Melun, a noble fighting with Louis, knowing that he was about to die, called for some of the Barons that had turned to the French side. Once present, he confesses how he grieved for their desolation and ruin. He told them of a plot by Louis and his counts and barons (including himself) that if he were crowned King, he would banish those Barons who were John's traitors and divide their lands between the French.
Being branded traitors by Louis and excommunicated by the Pope for turning against King John, the Barons were in a poor position. Their only hope was to be absolved of their crimes against John and accepted back into the fold. Well, fortuitously, they need not have worried as John was to die, and William Marshal, on behalf of the crown, accepted them back to his side.
The Plotters
The Pope - Innocent III
Innocent the Third was the most powerful man in Europe. The church held Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earls, and all men in its thrall, and the Pope was its leader. Men feared being excommunicated and not achieving their place in heaven, and that threat ensured compliance with the will of the Pope. This gave him significant influence, and he was not averse to using it.
After years under interdict and with the imminent threat of invasion by the French, John decided to deal with the Pope. In May 1213, the Pope’s representative, Pandulf, visited England to receive the king's submission. A ceremony where John agreed to all of Innocent’s demands took place at the Templar church at Dover. John formally surrendered England to the Holy See the following day and received it as a papal fief. This was a cunning plan. With England belonging to the Pope, it would be him that the French had to answer to if they invaded, not the English. It still left John in charge on the ground, effectively holding England in the Pope’s name. It did, though, mean that on top of the monies owed to Innocent, plus the recompense demanded, annual fees would have to be paid. England would be permanently indebted to the church. Unfortunately, John had a long history of reneging on paying his dues. Agreements with John were one-sided as far as he was concerned; his keeping to the conditions was optional.
By the beginning of 1216, John was already in debt to the Pope, and any chance of him catching up was being thwarted by the War with the Barons and Prince Louis of France. Innocent probably realised that his new territory was not in the safest and most secure hands and that the future would be challenging and potentially costly. A plan to remove him would be an interesting and welcome proposition.
Innocent III died in June 1216. If he were party to a plot to remove John, it must have been agreed before then.
Berengaria of Navarre - Queen of England - Wife of Richard I
Little is known of her life.
“The traditional description of her as "the only English queen never to set foot in the country" still would be true because she did not visit England during the time she was Richard's consort. She certainly sent envoys to England several times, mainly to inquire about the pension she was due as dowager queen and Richard's widow, which King John failed to pay. Although Queen Eleanor intervened and Pope Innocent III threatened him with an interdict if he did not pay Berengaria what was due, King John still owed her more than £4000 when he died. During the reign of his son Henry III of England, however, her payments were made.”
From the book John, King of England by John T Appleby:
“In 1201, John agreed to pay Berengaria a thousand marks a year. He failed to pay. In September 1207, she appealed to Pope Innocent as the protector of widows and orphans. He ordered John to send proctors to him to negotiate a settlement of her claims. John paid no heed. The pope wrote again in 1209. "Then he enumerated the lands in England that belonged to Berengaria by the terms of her marriage settlement and ordered John to settle with her concerning income from those lands. This letter, too, John ignored."
"In September 1215, over sixteen years after Richard's death, John wrote to the Pope to inform him that he had reached an agreement with his sister-in-law." He paid Berengaria two thousand marks in settlement of the arrears and agreed to pay a thousand marks yearly, in two instalments, at All Saints and on Ascension Day. He likely paid the first instalment, but by Ascension Day 1216 (18th May), he had poor finances and could not pay. He wrote to her explaining such and that it was the fault of the revolting Barons.
Richard I the Lionheart was a steadfast defender of the faith. His crusading exploits made him a favourite with the papacy. With his position as protector of widows and orphans, the Pope would have been particularly keen to defend his widow’s honour. John was clearly going to be incapable of maintaining payment to Berengaria. Replacing him would help remove an ongoing headache.
The Knights Templar:
Intrinsically connected to the Pope, they acted as his debt collector. Additionally, the Templars in England managed the finances of Berengaria, the former Queen of England. John had disrespected the power of the Pope and reneged on the restitution agreement. He also reneged on all his agreements with Berengaria. This meant that John was significantly in debt to the Templars, which would have presented them with a dichotomy. Support the King or support the Pope?
The Templars supported John throughout his reign despite the unrest and mayhem he created. The Master of the Temple in England, Aymeric de St Maur, was John's constant advisor and supporter. The Templars bankrolled him and protected him. In the lead-up to the creation of the Magna Carta, John lived in the Temple of London. The Templars were a religious and chivalric order and regularly acted as negotiators under challenging situations due to their ability to travel across war zones with seeming impunity. Like God, they were omnipresent, and no country’s leader would dare incur their wrath. Yet they also seem to have been bystanders in most skirmishes and feudal wars. For example, there is no record of them fighting in the Baron’s War. They supported the lawful rulers of countries but only really answered to themselves and the Pope.
By 1216 John was looking like a lost cause; with little ability to pay his debts any time soon, and an apparent inability to end the unrest destroying the country, the Templars must have despaired. Their purpose was ostensibly the protection of the Holy Land. They needed their organisation to function smoothly to fund crusades and activities in Outremer. Constant war in England was damaging their business activities. It would not take much for them to turn against the King in support of the Pope.
This was an opportunity for a power move by the Templars. They could bring stability to the country to carry out their business interests without distraction. They could ensure that a powerful individual aligned with their cause was next on the throne. This would ensure that debts owed to them (and the Pope and Berengaria) would be paid ongoing.
William Marshal:
Marshal is a genuinely fascinating character. This was a man not born into great wealth. He earned the respect and wealth that he attained. He was a God-fearing hero crusader and a loyal Englishman.
From 1210 to 1216, he must have had very divided loyalties. On the one hand, he was a staunch supporter of the church and an experienced crusader. On the other hand, he owed allegiance to his liege, King John. Then again, his sense of justice prevented him from fully backing the policies of John.
Little is known of William’s activities during the summer of 1216. He was in his homelands of the South Marches, but there are no records of what he was doing. Compared to much of the country, it was quiet there then. One has to wonder why William did not support John in his battles throughout the year. It could simply be that at 69, he was too old and weary to keep up the pace that John was setting.
During this summer, William did meet with his son, who had defected to the support of Louis. Their discussions were not recorded, but it remains fascinating that William Junior stayed with the rebels until after the death of John, whilst William Senior and John Marshal remained loyal to the King. This appears to be a hedging of bets. William Junior was an independent noble by this time, but it is hard to imagine him going against his father's will if he had demanded that he return to the fold.
The Earl Marshal had been instrumental in the significant actions of King John in the years 1213 to 1216. He had advised John to reconcile with the church and been part of the negotiations for that to happen. He was then crucial to the negotiations with the Barons in formulating the Magna Carta. William was a peacemaker with a sense of duty and loyalty. He sought peace between John and Philip of France.
He had significant disagreements with John and was sorely mistreated by him, but he ensured he stayed within the king’s inner circle. Aware of his advancing years, he must have grown weary of John's constant feuding and inability to implement stable leadership in the country. His loyalty to the country and a desire to secure a stable future for his family would have made him amenable to consideration of a plot against the King.
No individual benefited more from the death of King John than the Earl Marshal. He was appointed Regent, the effective King of England. He could unite the country in a way John was never able. He could never be King, but being Regent was the next best thing.
William Marshal effectively completed the establishment of England as a country distinct from the continent that John had started. At the age of 70, he led the victorious Battle of Lincoln. It united all of the defector Barons (at least temporarily) and marked the beginning of the end of French attempts to take over England.
The Knights Templar were very close to William. He was a knight that had distinguished himself in every way. On his deathbed, he was granted the rare privilege of being admitted into the order and buried in the round church of the London Temple. But that was not all; two of his sons, William 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and Gilbert 4th Earl of Pembroke, were also buried in Temple church. Richard, the third Earl, rebelled against King Henry III, which may be why the Templar brethren did not accept him. Gilbert could hardly be described as a knight worthy of a high Templar burial. He was an inexperienced warrior and died after falling from his horse at a tournament. His reconciliation of the Marshal family with Henry III undoubtedly secured his position in the Temple church. That these three Marshals were buried in Temple church does seem to indicate an agreement being made between the Templars and the Earl Marshal.
At his funeral, William was honoured as being the greatest knight that ever lived. An epithet that genuinely fits this man with such a rich history.
After his death, his family commissioned a biography of his life. It is a peculiar book of two halves. The first half is a romp through the early life of William, during which he dominates the grand tournaments across the continent. He always wins, and the other great knights fear his exploits. This half of the book establishes William as a great knight with all the trademarks of honour and chivalry. The second half is more sedate, describing his time in Ireland, his involvement in Magna Carta, and the time leading up to the Baron’s War, establishing him as a great diplomat. The Barons’ War and the death of John are then dispensed within a couple of pages before it moves on to his reluctant acceptance of the Regency. It is very careful to distance William from any potential questions around the end of John. One can’t help but wonder if this was the book's purpose. It was eighty years after the event before any chronicler dared suggest that John’s end was not natural. So, maybe the book achieved its desired effect.
Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester (1170-1232):
Ranulf appears to have been quite a straightforward man. He enjoyed immense power and wealth. At the end of the 12th century, it was said that he could muster 80 knights from his Cheshire lands and 118 from his English lands - a total of 198.
.
Around 1188 he married the widow of Henry II's son Duke Geoffrey II of Brittany. This marriage meant that Ranulph became the stepfather of the heir apparent Arthur after his uncle, King Richard I, nominated him. The marriage did not last, and in 1196, Ranulph abducted his estranged wife and child, incurring the wrath of Richard. Arthur was taken to the French court to be brought up alongside Prince Louis, son of King Philip II.
King John was always suspicious of Ranulph's loyalty, perhaps because of his close affiliation with Arthur. But John bought his loyalty until 1204/5, when he suspected him of contemplating revolt and supporting the Welsh rebels, subsequently removing much of his lands from him. This made Ranulph contrite and more loyal to John. After that, he was showered with gifts in return for his support.
He stood resolutely with the King through the Baron's War and supported the Earl Marshal through his Regency. His power and stature meant he had a legitimate claim to being appointed Regent but did not seek to challenge William Marshal for the position.
Immediately following the coronation of Henry III, Ranulf gained more influence and power. His wealth increased significantly. Following his involvement in the victory at Lincoln and his subsequent appointment as Earl of Lincoln, he gained Lincoln Castle, Bolingbroke, where he built the castle in 1220, Beeston Castle, Chartley Castle, and Wrangle Castle.
In 1218 he set off crusading, and in 1219 was party to the capture of Damietta. Soon after, he left the Holy Land and returned to England, where he found William Earl Marshal dead and the government in the control of Hubert de Burgh.
Later, he became an elder statesman and veteran fighter. He led Henry IIIs unsuccessful Poitou expedition of 1230-31 after the death of William Marshal (the younger). He died in 1232.
Summary
King John's death resulted from a plot hatched by Pope Innocent III, the Knights Templar, and William the Earl Marshal. More individuals would likely be involved in this plot, and more may yet be uncovered, but these are undoubtedly the key players. They all had motives, and they all received significant benefits from the outcome of the events. Overall, this circumstantial case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The events that took place in late 1216 in Lincolnshire were the most significant theft of power and wealth in the history of England. They have been hidden behind a ludicrous legend of treasure being lost on the marshes of the Wash and an unfortunate incident with peaches and the King. (It was said he overindulged in peaches, and that caused his illness) With just a little application of logic, the story falls apart. Searching for suspects, motives, and benefits reveals a more chilling, calculated story of the transfer of power and wealth. Some were undoubtedly motivated by a noble cause, others by greed or revenge.
The revelations presented here are logically sound and based on facts. There is, though, much more research to be done. For example, Hubert de Burgh is implicated in the deaths of several potential conspirators. He was a staunch supporter of John and may have felt it his duty to get revenge. This could provide good leads. Also, was Robert de Vieuxpont, Baron of Westmorland, a powerful Baron and ally of John, party to the plot? He was another knight buried in Temple Church alongside the Marshal family after his death.
The death of King John occurred just a few days after it was reported that he lost the crown jewels whilst crossing the marshes of the Wash. To learn more, read three stories about King John's Treasure.
コメント