English Monarchy in the Later Middle Ages

• What does the reign of Henry II suggest about the future of English foreign relationships?

At the beginning of Henry II, he was eager to conquer lands and people and control as much territory as he could. Though he owned a part of France by marriage, he sought to obtain more from King Louis VII of France; this did not work out well for Henry II, with Louis having overpowered him. From that point on, he was more careful about what countries and territories he attempted to rule over. He set an example that one should wait and lie low, and only strike when one had the upper hand in a position of power. This strategy worked for both Ireland and Wales (after his first attempt). By remaining disinterested in these other countries, Henry II was able to take them by surprise and seize territories when he had the advantage. For the future rulers of England, King Henry II sets the example that it was important to capture and control as many territories as possible when it was most convenient. He strongly enforced a feudalistic reign over all of the places under his rule and took the first steps to the time where the sun never set on the British empire.

• Does the common conception of Richard as "good" and John as "bad" hold up to reality?

Ever since their birth, both Richard and John were on uneven footing, with Richard, being older, having an advantage with their father, Henry II. It was many factors of their character and events in their child-and young adulthood that led them to be the people they were remembered as, their specific qualities shaping the kind of people they turned out to be.

Richard had always been an ambitious ruler, ever since he refused to give up his control of Aquitaine to John after their older brother, Henry the Younger, had perished. He skillfully made alliances against his enemies, and was eventually able to obtain the position of king after Henry II had passed. Richard was confident and full of bravado, which was demonstrated when he went off to fight for the Holy Land in the crusades. His people did not let his bravery and compassion for their cause go unnoticed.

John, on the other hand, may as well have been condemned from the moment he was born. He was the youngest, therefore the least favorite of his father, the most disadvantaged, and the one with the least experience. On top of this, he was also the opposite of his brother Richard: a coward. He was afraid of both confrontation and trusting people, which made it very hard for him to succeed in politics when he became king, not to mention the problem of his particular fondness for fine jewelry.

Richard and John, both brothers and adversaries at the same time, were rulers that were greatly shaped by their past, and, in turn, this ruling style would shape England and its surrounding territories forever. The terms "good" and "bad" are subjective, but this much is true: John made more serious mistakes due to his difference in character than Richard, and Richard had more of a knack for ruling than John, most likely due to the discrepancy between the brothers' levels of bravery and trust. Because of this, Richard will always still be remembered as the good king, and likewise John as the bad.

• How did the Magna Carta change the relationship of the Monarch and his subjects?

At first, the Magna Carta tried to lessen the king's power over the people, and diminish the influence of the feudal system for the good of the people. King John, though, overcome by the allure of power, disregarded the attempt at fairness and continued to rule and conquer as he was doing before the Magna Carta was ever thought up. After the death of King John, Henry III took his place and issued another Magna Carta, ensuring again the laws of the land of be enforced on the subjects and the barons, while still giving them their own rights, making the relationship between the Monarch and his subjects slightly more equal and fair.