GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-10 > 1004246980
From: "D. Spencer Hines" <>
Subject: Re: King John & Arthur
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 05:29:40 -0000
References: <036c01c15eee$8c4bf4a0$d3703bcb@leo>, <gGAC7.firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
John may have killed Arthur -- after dinner -- in Rouen, by his own
hand, on 3 April 1203, the Thursday before Easter. John was reportedly
drunk and possessed by the devil [ebrius et daemonio plenus]. John then
allegedly threw Arthur's weighted body into the Seine, or had it thrown.
And the rest of the story...
Arthur was a young puke, 16, who was conspiring with the French crown
against John and probably had it coming.
William The Marshal and the other leading English Barons had not wanted
Arthur to succeed Richard in 1199. William The Marshal carried the day
on that decision. John was definitely a pig in a poke, but Arthur would
probably have been far worse ---- and we'd all be speaking and writing
French today. <g>
Check The Archives.
Seek and Ye Shall Find.
Check Both SGM and SHM.
Study The Posts.
Read The Previous Posts In This Thread.
God Helps Those Who Helps Themselves.
Hines has posted on this matter several times and he tires of repeating
himself. He told you previously to CHECK THE ARCHIVES.
In other words, and somewhat more directly:
"Get off your duff, Louise."
And I don't appreciate your snippy little, peremptory, three-word,
In other words:
"Do your own damned homework."
Am I sufficiently clear, dear?
Exitus Acta Probat.
"You're the top! - You're a Waldorf salad. - You're the top! - You're a
Berlin ballad. You're a baby grand of a lady and a gent, You're an old
Dutch master, You're Mrs. Astor, You're Pepsodent. You're romance,
You're the steppes of Russia, You're the pants on a Roxy usher. I'm a
lazy lout that's just about to stop, But if, baby, I'm the bottom -
You're the top!" - [Cole Porter, Yale '13 - 1934. The sixth sentence
supra was reportedly Cole's favourite in the entire song. ---- DSH]
All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly. All original
material contained herein is copyright and property of the author. It
may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an attribution
to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly given, in
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor.
"Louise Staley" <> wrote in message
| Gentlemen, sources please.
| "D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
| > No.
| > The story is that John, in a drunken rage, slew young Arthur
| with his own hand, at Rouen on 3 April 1203.
| > Probably a good move, if true ---- but tainted.
| > Arthur was a young snot and thoroughly Frenchified. The
| English barons
| > did not want him as King.
| > Great-Grandfather William the Marshal, for example, had no use
| for him.
| > Arthur was actively plotting with the French crown against
| > If John did kill Arthur, he certainly had every right to.
| However, it
| > would have been more seemly and politic to have had someone
| else do the
| > dirty deed ---- as Richard III may well have done with the
| Young Princes
| > in the Tower. Kings have pogues to take care of that sort of
| thing ----
| > hired hands.
| > |"Leo van de Pas" wrote in message
| > | I understood that young Arthur was castrated and died from
| > | that 'operation'.
| > | I doubt King John would have done that himself.
| > | Best wishes
| > | Leo van de Pas