Why was King John of England named the 'Worst Briton' of his era?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_Britons_%28BBC_History_poll%29
All I can see that he did from his wikipedia page is sign the Magna Carta. Surely that's a good thing?! (if you believe in democracy)

Answer 1

.l Think king John was unfairly judged by history. He was regent for Richard(the lion hart)who was king.Richard was born in France and died in France.Where he is buried.lt was Richard's philandering that caused Regent John to impose unpopular taxes.Even later when Richard was ransomed by Saladin.lt was King John who had to raise this enormous ransom.Which bankrupted England.Richard returned to England,thanked John and the court,then left for his beloved France Funnily enough Richard is remembered as a good king.He'd be lucky if he spent two years of his entire life there,All he did was fight crusades and live abroad at the expence of the English people.Poor John had to bankroll him. He Richard was probably the worst king of England. With the blaim falling on his benefactor. John

Answer 2

I believe King John was bad for England. Henry VIII was a Great King - saving England from the Pope and confiscating the wealth of the Catholic Church for the Treasury.

Answer 3

You obviously didn't read down far enough - this is what the entry says towards the end :

"King John's reign has been traditionally characterised as one of the most disastrous in English history: it began with defeats—he lost Normandy to Philip Augustus of France in his first five years on the throne—and ended with England torn by civil war and himself on the verge of being forced out of power. In 1213, he made England a papal fief to resolve a conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, and his rebellious barons forced him to sign Magna Carta in 1215, the act for which he is best remembered.

As far as the administration of his kingdom went, John functioned as an efficient ruler, but he lost approval of the English barons by taxing them in ways that were outside those traditionally allowed by feudal overlords. The tax known as scutage, payment made instead of providing knights (as required by feudal law), became particularly unpopular."

Answer 4

It is another distortion of history; King John actually wasn't that bad. Compare him with his brother Richard I who was only actually in England for a very short time in his reign. It was Richards absence that caused problems in the first place.

Answer 5

The whole thing is hopelessly anachronistic. John wouldn't have considered himself an Englishman, let alone a Briton.
He was forced to sign MC after the barons had become sick of his misgovernment.

Answer 6

Didn't he also lose the crown jewels in the Wash? And did'nt he try selling Britain to the Moslems as long as he remained Regent? My memory is going I am sure these are things I remember!! Best Google it !

Answer 7

King John was responsible for the English being so whiney. He told them that as they were all English then they should be the natural owners of everything on earth and the english believed him. When they discovered that they weren't that bright nor very clever and that other nations had better systems of government etc they blamed King John.

Answer 8

Here's another correction:
King John did not sign the Magna Carta.
He had his seal set to it.
(Then he totally ignored it.....).

Answer 9

This is historically inaccurate.
He wasn't British
Both he and his brother Richard I were frenchmen.

Answer 10

idk