Richard I—the world’s greatest kidnapping….?

What links Richard I with Torquay? Well, it seems that when the king was captured and ransomed in Austria, one of those sent to negotiate for him was a certain very unpopular William Brewer, who was local to Torquay, a major landholder, administrator and judge in England during the reigns of Richard I, King John and Henry III. He was one of the justiciars appointed to administer the kingdom while the King was on his Crusade. You can read much more of this local connection this link, from which the above illustration is taken (the Christmas additions are mine).

And what had happened to Richard I to require the negotiations? After being captured and held at Dürnstein Castle, now in Austria, he was being ransomed for the enormous sum of 150,000 marks (100,000 pounds of silver). This was twice or three the annual income for the English Crown. “….Eleanor [of Aquitaine], Richard’s mother, attempted to raise the ransom while both clergy and laymen were taxed for a quarter of the value of their property. The gold and silver treasures of English churches were confiscated, and money was further raised from other taxes. Even though 100,000 marks was handed over, it still wasn’t enough. Nonetheless, on 4 February 1194 Richard was released….”

Was Richard worth it? Hell, NO! Only kicking and screaming would I have parted with a groat for him. As for the enduringly sweet romance of Blondel the minstrel who found him—bah!

Why do I dislike him so? Well, fto begin with, according to this site:

“….It appears that he hadn’t much interest in being king.…in his ten years as monarch he only spent a few months in England….He once remarked that he would have sold the whole country if he could have found a buyer [or‘I would sell London itself if only I could find a rich enough buyer.’]….Fortunately he couldn’t find anyone with the necessary funds!….”

Eh? Sorry, but it might have been more fortunate for England if he had found such a buyer. Just think, no King John either. Ah, but hold on a moment. To extrapolate the ‘no King John either’ part means going without a lot of other subsequent sovereigns too, including the Yorkists. No Richard III? That wouldn’t do at all! And heaven knows who or what we might have ended up with instead! But that doesn’t change the fact that Richard I was a first class, card-carrying louse. Of our three Kings Richard, he alone warrants my irretrievably derogatory opinion. I’d take up arms for Richards II and III but never for Richard I.

I’ve recently seen him referred to as Richard the Great, which is not a name I’ve known before. Nor did he deserve it. He may have been a great fighter, but he was a contemptible king who neglected his subjects and kingdom except when he wanted to bleed them dry so he could indulge in his obsession with fighting all the more. He was a martial robot!

And why am I writing about him this Christmas? Because today, 20 December, in 1192, he was captured near Vienna by Leopold of Austria “….who accused him of arranging the murder of his cousin. Moreover, Richard had offended Leopold by casting down his standard from the walls of Acre….The detention of a crusader was, however, contrary to public law, and so the Pope excommunicated the Duke….” The excommunications and hostage moving continued, culminating in the exorbitant ransom demand.

Some biographical accounts of the Lionheart are even handed about him, as here with Britannica.com:

“….Richard was a thoroughgoing Angevin, irresponsible and hot-tempered, possessed of tremendous energy, and capable of great cruelty. He was more accomplished than most of his family, a soldier of consummate ability, a skilful politician, and capable of inspiring loyal service. He was a lyric poet of considerable power and the hero of troubadours. The evidence that he was a homosexual seems persuasive but has been strongly challenged. Richard had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal….”

But not a word about how he screwed even his poorest subjects for every last groat he could.

This site declares:-

“….[Richard] gained legendary status as one of the great medieval knights and kings thanks to his daring deeds and the love and respect of his soldiers. After his death the myths only grew bigger, starting with the Anglo-Norman novel Romance of Richard Cœur de Lion published around 1250 CE. Already having proven himself as courageous, a determined foe of the Saracens and a composer of poetry to boot, Richard was the very model of the chivalrous knight and so his legend grew along those lines. Medieval artworks depicted the king improbably jousting Saladin, he was attributed fine speeches about saving his men or he would not be worthy of his crown….Even today, the presence of a dramatic statue of the king outside the Houses of Parliament in London is an indicator of the special place Richard has gained and continues to hold in the hearts of Englanders….”

Oh, don’t hold back, just say he could walk on water too! I wonder if the writer would have been so fulsome if he’d had to part with a quarter of his property just to get the selfish b-st-rd back to England.

To England? Yes, and straight away from again because he bogged off abroad immediately to get on with more fighting. This time he’d gone for good for good because five years later, on 6 April 1199, he died of a gangrenous arrow wound and was buried at Fontevraud Abbey, Anjou.

On the other hand, the late-Victorian scholar William Stubbs considered him to be “a bad son, a bad husband, a selfish ruler, and a vicious man,” and “….He was a bad king: his great exploits, his military skill, his splendour and extravagance, his poetical tastes, his adventurous spirit, do not serve to cloak his entire want of sympathy, or even consideration, for his people. He was no Englishman, but it does not follow that he gave to Normandy, Anjou, or Aquitaine the love or care that he denied to his kingdom. His ambition was that of a mere warrior: he would fight for anything whatever, but he would sell everything that was worth fighting for. The glory that he sought was that of victory rather than conquest….”

There are, of course, countless sites about this king, his life, capture and character. Here are a few. Firstly this article and this one, and this one.

You can read about Dürnstein here and here. And many other sites.

The BBC’s assessment of him doesn’t mention his neglect of England. And this site gives a lengthy account of his reign without dwelling on the fact that as far as his English subjects were concerned he was an absentee tax-grabber with whom they’d had the misfortune to be lumbered!