King John's Lost Treasure

Written By Tripzibit on Jul 6, 2009 | 07:17

John, King of England from 1199–1216, is remembered today for many reasons, most of them unfavourable. To children he is best known as the arch-villain in the Robin Hood story, and in history he is remembered as ‘bad king John’, who lost most of the overseas possessions of the Angevin empire, irritated the barons so much that he was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215, and lost his Crown Jewels in the Wash. The legend of John’s lost treasure has been handed down and grown in the telling for 700 years, largely by word of mouth, and anyone brought up in the Fens has heard it from an early age. John was born on Christmas Eve, the youngest son of Henry II and his wife Eleanor of Aquitaine. As a child, John tended to be overshadowed by is older brother Richard. Like his father, John developed a reputation for violent rages which lead to him foaming at the mouth. Henry left no land to John when he died so John was given the nick-name John Lackland.

In 1189, all of Henry's territory went to his oldest son, Richard I, better known as Richard the Lionheart. In 1199, Richard was killed in France and John became the king of England. His reign started in an unfortunate way. In 1202, John's nephew, Arthur of Brittany, was murdered. Many in Brittany believed that John was responsible for his murder and they rebelled against John.

In 1204, John's army was defeated in Brittany and John had no choice but to retreat. His military standing among the nobles fell and he was given a new nickname - John Softsword. The defeat in north France was a major blow for John and a costly one. To pay for the defeat, John increased taxes which was not popular with anybody other than John and his treasurers. John also succeeded in falling out with the pope in 1207. John quarreled with the pope over who should be Archbishop of Canterbury. The pope excommunicated John and put England under a Medieval Church law that stated that no christening or marriage would be legal until the time the pope said that they would be. Medieval Church law said that only christened people could get to Heaven while children born out of marriage were doomed to Hell. This placed people in England under a terrible strain and they blamed one person for this - John.

In 1213, John had to give in and surrender the spiritual well-being of the whole country to the pope. However, the pope never fully trusted John and in 1214, the pope proclaimed that anybody who tried to overthrow John would be legally entitled to do so. In the same year, John lost another battle to the French at Bouvines. This defeat resulted in England losing all her possessions in France. This was too much for the powerful barons in England. In 1214, they rebelled. John was forced to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215. This guaranteed the people of England rights that the king could not go back on. In 1216, John tried to go back but this only provoked the barons into declaring war on him. By 1216, John was ill. During the war, he suffered from dysentery.

The basic story of his lost treasures, as related by historians from the 13th century onwards, is that King John was travelling in the East of England in late 1216. By the autumn of 1216, John’s fortunes had sunk to a new low. He had inherited the mighty Angevin empire in England and France forged by his father Henry II, pawned to pay for the crusades by his brother Richard – and squandered by himself. Having already lost his lands in Normandy to the French king, he had faced a rampaging French army on his own soil aided and abetted by his own rebellious barons. The previous year he had been forced by them to sign the Magna Carta, reducing the powers of the crown. Although he had won some victories since then, he had earlier been ex-communicated by the pope and his whole country had been placed under an interdict from Rome – every church in England was ordered to be closed.

On October 9, 1216, though, he arrived in Lynn, one of the few places where he was still popular. He had journeyed from Lincolnshire to Bishop’s Lynn (now King’s Lynn) in Norfolk, but when he arrived he began to feel ill. It was decided that he would return back towards Lincolnshire, which was probably thought to be safer at this time, as the French king, Louis, had recently invaded the country to the south. On 12 October, John attempted to cross the Wash, the large bay that separates East Anglia from Lincolnshire. At this time it extended much further inland than it does today, and would have been a region of mudflats and marshes, traversable at low tide but dangerous to the unwary, riddled with quicksand and deeper channels and vulnerable to rapid movements of water with the tide.

The king is said to have crossed over at Wisbech, where it was possible to ford the Wellstream, one of the rivers running into the Wash. Meanwhile the king’s baggage train, which supposedly included all of the royal treasures including the Crown Jewels (the regalia the monarch bore during the coronation), was also trying to cross the Wash, but was surprised by the tide and got lost amidst the rising waters and quicksand. The traditional account of this disaster is well represented by this passage from Charles Dickens’ A Child’s History of England’: “looking back from the shore when he was safe, he [the king] saw the roaring water sweep down in a torrent, overturn the waggons, horses, and men, that carried his treasure, and engulf them in a raging whirlpool from which nothing could be delivered.” Undone by this tremendous stroke of ill fortune, John was taken to the monastery at Swineshead Abbey in Lincolnshire where he was greeted with ‘quantities of pears, and peaches, and new cider’. He was taken ill again, with dysentery, and moved a few more times, eventually dying on the 18 October at Newark.

Historians disagree about many aspects of this tale. For would-be treasure hunters, one of the most interesting issues is the question of what the king actually lost. Although it is traditionally said that he lost the Crown Jewels, there is no contemporary record that says exactly this. Roger de Wendover’s Flores Historiarum (Flowers of History), written around 1230, gives the lost loot as ‘treasures, precious vessels, and all the other things which he cherished with special care’. Ralph of Coggeshall’s Chronicon Anglicanum describes it as ‘his chapel with its relics … and diverse household effects’. Another source describes the king’s ‘pricely carriage and furniture’. In his book “Undiscovered”, Ian Wilson surveys the theories about John’s lost treasure and points out that the official records of the time show that the king was moving round the countryside at quite a rate – sometimes as much as 60 kilometres (37 miles) a day. This suggests that he was not accompanied by a large baggage train, which in that day and age would have been extremely sluggish. So perhaps the contemporary accounts are exaggerated. Set against this is the evidence that genuinely valuable treasure was lost that October day.

King John’s favourite hobby was collecting jewellery, while as monarch he also owned a hoard of gold and silver plate and other valuables, which he had spent much of 1215 and 1216 gathering together from the various monasteries where it was deposited. Of particular value were the imperial regalia he had inherited from his grandmother, the Empress of Germany, which made up part of his Crown Jewels. During John’s reign all this treasure is listed in the royal inventories called the Rolls (which John himself instituted), but most of it is absent from the inventory of regalia used during the coronation of John’s successor, Henry III in 1220. In other words, it seems likely that a priceless collection of royal valuables did indeed disappear.

The central issue is the probable location of the disaster. The coastline in this region is much changed since the Middle Ages. Drainage projects in later centuries reclaimed a lot of land and radically altered the way that sediment was deposited, and the coastline advanced many kilometres. Wisbech in particular, which used to be close to the sea, is now several kilometres inland. For treasure hunters this is potentially encouraging, because it means that where the jewels were lost is now dry land, but it also means that the paths, fords and causeways used to cross the Wash in medieval times now exist as relicts only, occasionally identifiable from the air or as the basis for modern parish boundaries or roads. On top of this there is serious disagreement about whether John was travelling with or separately from his baggage train, and which route would have been taken in either scenario.

Most modern sources confidently state that John was travelling separately from his baggage train. While he had gone the long way round the Wash, via Wisbech, his train was taking a short cut across the Wash, presumably to make up for the fact that it moved more slowly than he did. As Wilson points out in “Undiscovered”, however, the contemporary sources specifically state that the king barely escaped the disaster, which suggests he was with the baggage train when it was overcome. If the train was indeed carrying his collected loot, he probably would have been loath to let it out of his sight. Safety would have been a particular issue because of the unsettled times and the fact that the fenland of Lincolnshire was hostile territory where the Norman monarchy had never been popular. (This area had been the haunt of the 11th-century rebel Hereward the Wake, a historical figure who was one of the main sources for the legendary figure of Robin Hood.) These considerations are of prime importance, because it is known that John did cross the Wellstream at Wisbech. If his baggage train was with him, it must have crossed there too. The Wellstream no longer exists, but the River Nene flows more or less in the same course.

Wilson describes three theories about the exact site of the disaster. For many years the traditional view was that the baggage train crossed separately from John, travelling from Cross Keys on the western side of the Wash to Long Sutton on the eastern side, and being overwhelmed near present-day Sutton Bridge. Many treasure hunters have looked in this area, without success. Historian Gordon Fowler, assuming that the baggage train was with the king, has pinpointed the likely crossing point of the Wellstream as being just between Wisbech and Walsoken (although today these are now more or less the same town). He even suggested an explanation for the disaster – the sudden appearance of a tidal bore, known as an eagre in that region, which is where a tidal surge funnels water up a river as a series of large, potentially destructive waves. A third candidate – based on the theory of historian J C Holt that the traditional crossing point of the Wellstream in those days was to the north of Wisbech, between Walpole and Foul Anchor – puts the location near modern-day Tydd Gote. There is evidence in this region of medieval quicksand beds, which ties in with the contemporary accounts of the disaster.

More recently a fourth candidate has emerged, based on a reconstruction of the exact tide tables for that day in 1216, which suggests that the baggage train would have got further than the Wellstream by the time the rising tide caught up with it, and was probably crossing the mouth of the Welland River at modernday Fosdyke, to the north-east of Wisbech. With so many candidate locations it is hard for a treasure hunter to know where to look, and any search will not be helped by the 10 metres (33 feet) of soil believed to have accumulated over the previous ground level in the last 800 years, which puts the treasure well beyond the range of normal metal detectors. However, this may be only part of the problem. Various sub-plots and intrigues behind the traditional story suggest that the treasure may not be there after all.

After John’s death, rumours proliferated that he had been poisoned, probably via those ‘quantities of pears, and peaches, and new cider’ laid out for him by the monks of Swineshead. Although most modern historians discount these rumours, not everyone agrees, and medieval conspiracy theories have been advanced, based on the ‘coincidence’ between the loss of the king’s treasure and his untimely death. Another theory suggests that the Crown Jewels were not lost at all, but were either sold/used by John as collateral for loans, with the Wash incident being staged as a kind of misdirection or medieval fraud.Whatever maleficent plan the king was hatching was cut short by his premature death/murder, and the treasure was subsequently stolen.

At least one contemporary report speaks of suspiciously heavily laden men seen leaving Newark in the wake of his death. There’s absolutely no evidence for this, but it makes a good story. The ailing king made it to Newark Castle, where he died, aged 49, on October 18, just two days after re-entering Lincolnshire. He was buried at Worcester – minus his missing regalia. Maybe someone else did make off with the loot and the lost treasure in The Wash story was just a ruse to cover the glaring absence of the jewels. Certainly it reinforces the negative image of King John that even recent revisionist historians have not been able to change. We have to ask if a suspicious character like John would really travel without his most precious jewels.

If the treasure is really buried somewhere near modern-day Sutton Bridge, then it would be covered by 20 feet or more of silt, so we can all put our metal detectors away. But that hasn’t stopped people looking. During the 1930s a group of American treasure hunters paid local farmers 2s 6d an acre for their help in looking for the jewels at Walpole Island. More recently a team from Nottingham University took soil samples in a bid to discover the causeway the wagon train used. The search goes on. We may never know the truth.

In the 14th century it was commonly rumoured that Robert, Lord Tiptoft, had salvaged the treasure, setting himself up as a wealthy man in the north country on the proceeds. According to East Anglian folklorist W A Dutt, local legend in the Sutton area talks of King John’s Hole, a pool where the jewels were hidden, either by John himself for some nefarious purpose, or by those who recovered them after the disaster in the Wash. The pool is said to be on the southern side of the King’s Lynn to Long Sutton Road. But it is possible that this booty hidden in the hole has already been recovered. In the 14th century local baron Robert, third Lord Tiptoft, suddenly became immensely wealthy. There was no apparent source for his sudden affluence, and rumours spread that Tiptoft had discovered King John’s lost treasure. So perhaps there is nothing out there left to recover …

Sources :
Lost Histories : “Exploring the World’s Most Famous Mysteries” by Joe Levy;
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/norfolk-life/PlaceinHistory/content/41KingJohn.aspx;
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/king_john.htm;
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_church.htm

Pic source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_of_England_-_Illustration_from_Cassell%27s_History_of_England_-_Century_Edition_-_published_circa_1902.jpg



Related Posts with Thumbnails

16 komentar:

David Funk said...

I remember reading about King John in school especially with the Magna Carta, but was unaware of the lost treasure.

There are many inconsistencies with this as pointed out here, but it is still a fascinating story.

Nice post my good friend!:)

tripzibit said...

(David Funk) Yes, a lot of people doubt the existence of his lost treasure. But, who know maybe in the future someone may reveal the truth :)

2nd Wind Sports Equipment said...

This is very informative, I've heard about King John in school. This lost treasure is very sensational, I think its already lost out there inside the earth.

Anonymous said...

"Church law said that only christened people could get to Heaven while children born out of marriage were doomed to Hell."

There has never been a "Church law" that says children born out of wedlock go to hell. Do some more research and try again.

tripzibit said...

(@Anonymous) Thank you for reading my post. The "church" here is refer to "medieval church". I have provide a source link to explain that and also change the "church" word into "medieval church" to avoid any conflict.

Or you can check my source here :
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/king_john.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/medieval_church.htm

I'm sorry for this inconvenience

Anonymous said...

This article reads like a 12 year old wrote it. It's really quite bad. Please revise and repost, this time using appropriate journalistic values. Thanks!

tripzibit said...

(@Anonymous) First of all, thank you for reading my blog here, and please excuse my poor-english.

Why should i revise my article here? You don't even let me know your name. I admit my english is really bad because i'm Indonesian, and English is not my native language.

Education in my country is very expensive, so i learn english via world wide web, i'm learning by doing.

I don't mind if you insult me that my writing skill like a 12 year old, but at least tell me your real name and your country. Are you a journalist, historian or english teacher?

If you're an english expert or a professional writer, please give me a tips, how to write like a pro.

Regards,
Tripzibit

Stone said...

Dear Tripzibit, please ignore the rude remarks of the person who is not brave enough to show a name. Your article shows you have a better grasp of the English language than most teenage children and many English adults! I applaud you for sharing your knowledge and interest with altruistic intent.

azza said...

Hi, please ignore the rude person who cannot even allow you to know his name. Your writing is interesting, informative & well researched. I really enjoyed reading it. I am English & I did not think your writing was like a 12 year old, nor did I think it was obvious that English was not your mother tongue. I am sure that the person who was so rude is someone who firstly can not do anything academic himself, & secondly I very much doubt he can write anything even vaguely academic in a foreign language especially one that has so little in common with his mother tongue, as there is between Indonesian & English! Good luck with your studies & I assure you I have read far worse English written by English people

Tripzibit said...

(@Stone & @Azza) Hi, thanks alot for your kind words and supports. It really boost my spirit to share more interesting articles. I'm truly appreciate it.

Best regards,
Tripzibit

ePolitica said...

Interesting article - thank you for posting!

Amanda Horsfield said...

I came across this article whilst looking into King John and his treasure as I live in King's Lynn and I found it thoroughly informative. You're English leaves no room for judgement or criticism, I wouldn't have known it was written by somebody that wasn't English had you not said. I wish you all the luck in the world with your endeavours and please don't let small minded people dis-sway you from your path. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with me.

Tripzibit said...

(@Amanda Horsfield) Hi, Amanda. I'm glad that this article is useful for you. Of course the credit will be given to all my article sources, its because they are doing the actual research and thank you so much for your support.

Best regards,
Tripzibit

dean greensmith said...

Hi Tripzibit,

During the early to mid 1980's my mother and marther embarked on a treasure hunting trip with the hope of finding this missing treasure, I would have been somewhere between 8 and 10 years old at the time so I can not remember the exact locations that they searched. However I do remember a few of the more important details of what they found and how they found it.

My farther had at the time invested in a new and quite powerful metal detector of the pulse induction type that was by design quite sensitive to Gold and Iron.

During the weeks long camping trip I remember standing near the edge of a field watching my farther dig a very deep hole approximately 5 feet deep and probably about 2 to 3 feet in diameter while trying to recover an unknown object that had a very strong signal on the detector.

I distinctly remember what he found, and while he didn't find any treasure in the hole partly due to the bottom of the hole being below the water table so starting to fill with water and collapse the sides making the hole dangerous to continue digging.

What he found and what I remember very well as he lifted that spade out of the hole to show me and my mother was the pattern of chain mail clearly visible in the spade full of mud he had dug out.
there was no actual chain mail which had decomposed log ago but you could see the pattern of the mail as a rust coloured in the mud. if you touched it it disintegrated between your fingers.

Now i'm not saying that he was near to finding the supposed missing treasure but the presence of chain mail in an area that has once been part of the the wash would give slight creditability to theory that someone had discarded the mail in an attempt to avoid drowning on an incoming tide many centuries earlier. the reason I believe the mail had been discarded was that there were no bones or any other sigh of human remains in the hole.

I hope my account Is of interest.

Warm Regards

Dean from Lincoln

Tripzibit said...

@Dean greensmith: Hi, Dean. This is very interesting. I think the chainmail was hundreds of years old.

Too bad there was no other artifacts beside the chainmail, but your father very lucky to find the chainmail using metal detector.

Thank you for sharing your experience of treasure hunting with us :)

Best regards,
Tripzibit

Roger Turner said...

Has anyone thought of checking John's Tomb or grave.Perhaps it hasn't been opened since 1216.Just a thought!!!