Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

Why Richard l.

There is a bloody great big statue of Richard 1 outside the houses of parliament in westminster.
WHY WHY WHY????????????????????????????
Richard spent no more than six months of his ten year rule in England. He spoke no English. He married a cypriot princess He went on a crusade to win back Jerusalem for the christian world WHICH HE FAILED TO DO but in the process he bankrupted this country.
His father Henry ll had been a great king who had held England, Normandy, Aquitaine, Gascony, Anjou and other french provinces (more than half of modern France) and had kept peace in England for his entire reign. He also laid the foundations of the judicial system that we still recognise.
So why is there a statue to a king who never did a single thing for this country when his father had been a so much greater king who actually achieved a lasting legacy?
I'll tell you why, bloody religion. Richard went on his futile crusade and gained favour with the pope (Popes have always been a pain in the arse to this country) Henry was implicated in the murder of Thomas Becket (the archbishop of canteerbury) who was a self serving, money grabbing, two faced catholic
So when the time came for the pious Victorians to choose an English monarch to erect a statue to, they chose the 'courageous, brilliant soldier, (but dreadful king), beloved of popes and churchmen, Richard the lion heart'. A man of little worth as king to this country.
AlmostAristotle AlmostAristotle 61-65, M 20 Responses Feb 12, 2011

Your Response


Isn't is always the way? the church I believe, was the power behind the throne.

Because for some reason, he is considered a hero. I remember reading about the "Lionheart" in an old history book English history book (now I'm going to have to drag out my old book collection and find it) that told of how cruel he actually was. Stories and movies have romanticized him almost beyond recognition (such as Sir Walter Scott's 'The Talisman') Personally, I think his only claim to fame was slaughtering "infidels". But that's just my humble opinion.

I was thinking it was because everybody hates John so much--a kind of "**** off' to his memory. And that Richard was a prettyboy showboat.

the other statue of note should be outside charing cross railway station put there in 1863,when it opened,to mark the site near to were was the site of a holy well,placed on that site was the cross to queen Eleanor Edwards the first wife she had died on the 20 sept 1290 so a cross was placed there,but that was removed in 1647 by Cromwell she is in Westminster abbey that was the last of the 10 crosses ,long story.

Would be waiting for more of your posts. Informative and entertaining.

There are 180 of them to choose from if you're really interested ladyryan.

wow thanks AA

Very interesting, I have learned a few things, thank you Ari.

You're most welcome hc.

so the first crusade is 1096 to 1099 ,the second is 1147 to 1149, the third is is with Richard first 1190 to 1192 ended with a peace treaty ,the 4 th crusade 1202 to 1204,the 5th crusade 1217 to 1220,the 6 th crusade 1228 to 1229 ,the 7th crusade 1249 to 1250, the 8th crusade 1270 to 1271, and the fall of acre in 1291 ended 192 years of crusades,but it is Richard the first that we think of crusades he was king from 1172.

Another great post with a strong standpoint Ari. AWESOME! Now I have to go and read up on this guy! I love it when I read something in here and it inspires me to go and learn more. Thanks!! :)

being in the first crusade,that makes him a man of god,but the masons put that up ,as he was a mason,go to temple church and see those masons those in the first crusade the legs are crossed at the ankle,the second crusade is crossed under the knee,the third crusade is above the knee,the forth crusade,the body turned to the right, and legs crossed above the knee.and no i am not a mason.

Richard l'sts crusade was the third crusade not the first.

yes very true, but the point is he is the person of note when we think of the crusades ,


King Richard the Lionheart had a good publishest.

You are in part right humpty. And I think I could expand on your theme and answer my own question completely, <br />
But I think it's the question behind the question that I'm trying to provoke a response to, why not a king who actually achieved something worthwhile, it is indeed the strangeness of us Brits

The reason why Richard ! has a statue is because he was seen to be gallent/chivolourous not that he won the crusade but that he tried.Its an English thing to try to do dangerous things even if you die in attempt or fail at least you tried.

We have a president here, actually we've had a series of them, who are bent on bankrupting the country over wars in the Middle East. They never seem to learn.

i think we british have a love for the oddball and underdog. i mean, attacking a distant country, committing genocide against the very ppl the figurehead [christ] of his religion was borne from and failing in everything else... well... he was a complete ***. <br />
but, hey, he had BLUE BLOOD!!<br />
isn't that good enough?

I think you are probably right there brainy. I think the one of Richard just bugs me because it's thrust in your face everytime the TV cameras cover an interview or story about parliament.

who knows proable the same thinking behind having a statue of movie charcter like rockie in a town square

All to **** basically and continues to be so............from a Brit to a Brit?

Would you care to expand on that Moonpenny

British logic.......

Victorian piety.

Maybe the pigeons needed someone to crap on? ;)