Jenny asked in Society & CultureRoyalty · 1 decade ago

Was King Richard a good person?

was he a good person

did he have morals

help plz i have this homework for tomorrow



first king richard

10 Answers

  • Paco
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    King Richard I was generally though of as a great king throughout history. Most people know him as the hero of the Robin Hood tales.


    Although he did marry at one point, he had no children, and is often believed to be a homosexual.


    Modern historians generally are not so kind in describing him. He was considered selfish and vain. He spent almost his entire 10 year reign on crusades outside of England. He took a huge risk and allowed himself to be captured. The resulting ransom nearly bankrupt the country.


    He was also guilty of trying to murder his father. Of course, that crime was shared by nearly all of his brothers and his mother.


    The classic movie about his family is "Lion in Winter".At the time of the movie Richard is 26 years old, and will not become king for another 5.5 years. The movie takes place in Christmas 1183. Richard's older brother had died the previous summer so he is now the heir to the throne. He has been fighting against his father for 10 years at this point.

  • 4 years ago

    Good King Richard

  • 1 decade ago

    He was a good military leader. Not a very good king of England, because he spent so little time here. I don't know much about his personal morals, but he probably had mistresses like most kings did. It has been suggested that he was homosexual, but i know of no evidence that supports this suggestion. He is supposed to have been very close to King Philip of France when they went on crusade together, but nobody at the time ever accused him of homosexuality that i am aware of.

  • 1 decade ago

    We've had 3.

    Richard I 'The Lionheart' (1189 - 1199) - An amazing King, only spent 6 months of his 10 year reign in England. Sadly he also completely emptied the banks, but he conquered vast Lands for Enlgand, repaired the taxation system, settled all barons disputes and became a Christian hero. A good King

    Richard II (1377 - 1399) - An awfull King sitting on both sides of a rebellion and messing up both sides, thus destroying England and its people. He was 'removed' by King Henry IV in 1399 and died the following year in prison. He was a terrible King

    Richard III (1483 - 1485) - Forced his way onto the throne after the death of his brother by declaring his sons bastards, this angered many people and quickly destroyed his brothers(Edward IV) legacy and reputation he had built up. He crown was challenged in 1485, he died on the battlefield. He was a terrible King.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • vates
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    In the ahead (written by means of the editor) of The Regulators it says Richard Bachman died of melanoma in 1985. It even offers the identify of his spouse Claudia Eschelman(Bachman). It is going into element, however of direction Stephen King is a fiction creator so I believe he would have made it up.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    What do you mean by good. Was he a good person. possibly as he thought he was doing Gods work fighting saladin during the crusades. He negotiated with Saladin and they had a mutual respect. Its difficult to have morals during conflict, and he spent most of his life fighting in one form or other. My guess is he had good intentions, doing what he thought God put him here to do. However by today's standards morally he would be seen as cruel and unjust, He did treat England with some disdain but this wasn't his ancestral home, his own mother land of Anjou was his first concern.

  • 1 decade ago

    The legend of Richard I’s being homosexual isn’t taken seriously today by any respectable historians. It rests on two shreds of evidence only:

    - A remark by a chronicler that when he quarrelled with his father Henry II and promptly went to visit Philip of France with a view to joining forces to attack Henry, Philip and Richard ate from the same dish and at night slept in one bed. But in the 12th century this was no indication of sexual activity – people shared beds as a matter of course, and for a king to invite a vassal or guest to share his bed was a public gesture of trust and favour. In modern political language, Philip and Richard meant to serve notice on Henry that they were, literally, “climbing into bed together” to make an alliance against him.

    - A hermit who rebuked him for his misdeeds, exhorting him to return to his wife and ‘remember the destruction of Sodom and abstain from illicit acts’. However, in the Middle Ages the word “sodomy” wasn’t restricted to homosexuality, but was applied to irregular sexual behaviour of all kinds, including rape, adultery and fornication in general; which Richard was well-known for.

    It’s true that he had no children by his wife, and showed little interest in her company, but there could have been any number of physical and/or relationship reasons for that. He did, however, have one acknowledged bastard, and might have had more if it hadn’t been for his habit (which enraged his subjects in Poitou so much they actually rose in open revolt because of it) of abducting the daughters of his vassals and, when he got tired of them, passing them on to his followers for a general gang-bang. Thus, when the unfortunate girls finally came limping home, the paternity of any children they had was unattributable.

    When he invaded Cyprus on the way to Palestine in 1191 and captured the daughter of its ruler, gossips all over Europe reported that he promptly made her his concubine. And there was a tale about him making advances to a nun, telling her she had beautiful eyes, upon which she promptly gouged them out herself and had them sent to him, so he would leave her alone. That’s certainly just a tale (it’s a well-known folklore trope) but gives a very clear idea of how he was perceived in his own time - as an exceptionally brutal and predatory heterosexual.

    In addition to his nasty behaviour to women, he was avaricious. He wrung money ot of his merchants, and the Jews. He made war on the King of Sicily for withholding the dowry of the Dowager Queen, Richard’s sister Joan – and when the King gave in and produced his sister’s money, he kept it himself. He was given to fearful tantrums, and was a dangerously bad loser – when a French knight beat him fairly in a playful joust, he was so angry he refused to let the winner in his presence again or hear his name spoken for months – which was tricky, because they were on Crusade on the time and this guy was one of the best French war leaders.

    All the Angevin kings had alarming tempers, but Richard was easily the nastiest and most dangerous to know of the whole bunch. You really wouldn’t have wanted to be in the same county as him.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Which King Richard? Not Richard III. He was nasty.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    He was a homosexual. That is why he died without an heir, leaving his brother, John, to rule the kingdom.

    Edit: I was referring to Richard the I or "Lion hart"

  • 1 decade ago

    Kings and Queens are generally not what they would like you to think they are.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.