King John Weak

Shakespeare, like Milne, wrote stories and could pick what he wanted from the truth. What Shakespeare portrayed him as isn't necessarily true but may be based on the truth. He may have exaggerated the truth into the play, as he had done that with previous works. This could be proved by reading the text carefully, it says he made him seem a ‘weak’ man. If he was weak, he wouldn't have been unfair to people (according to other sources). This means that parts of Shakespeare's play is definitely untrue and exaggerated. It cannot be used to judge what King John did and acted like during his reign because it isn't a real example of who King John was. They may have kept thinking he was not a good person because he was thought to be someone he wasn't …show more content…
He was correct in introducing the Magna Carta which clearly helped the future a lot, and he also strengthened monarchy an insufficient but needed amount. He had also kept good records during his time. In my opinion, he could have been a better king by altering his decisions to suit all his people, also not using all his money then increasing all taxes because then people will lose money and may not be able to handle living with little money. Any ruler’s actions will anger some people no matter what, as everyone has different …show more content…
This was because the monks had spread rumours about him to make other people hate him too. People did indeed do this, and everyone hated him. Now and then, you would find the few that thought nothing was wrong with him and supported him through all he did. Also, at the start of the King’s reign, Prince Edward V was murdered. People accused King John of doing it, as he supposedly didn't want him forcing the throne to him. The word spread and soon many people thought he was an awful person. So, at the time of his reign, nobody was genuinely fond of him. Time passed, and the days went, and eventually he died. People remembered him as being the worst King they could remember. This reputation stayed, until later, once people started making books and plays about him. Some made it humorous and creative, and some made it depressing. Either way, it sent the same message- King John was a bad person. People’s thoughts didn't lighten about him. Many years later, historians started to question the traditional interpretation. They had looked into it and found many sources that state that he wasn't as bad as people thought he was. They started to explain the reason it why people may think he was and found out some remarkable information. Over the years this has kept happening and historians all over the globe have kept looking for what King John was actually like, but as of now, historians